[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 21, 1996
.0834 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are going to begin right away, because we have a pretty full agenda today.
.0835
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our first group of witnesses this morning will include the Mining Association of Canada, Pentland Firth Ventures Ltd., Placer Dome Canada Ltd., the Prospectors' and Developers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Canadian Labour Congress. As you can see, we have a very full agenda.
Have you decided amongst yourselves who will be leading off the discussion this morning?
[English]
I welcome you all on behalf of the committee. I suppose you will want to come forward in two different series, but if you want to do it all as one group, I will leave it to you to decide amongst yourselves after you have introduced yourselves.
Again, we welcome you. We would like to start. We have a heavy schedule and we are already slightly late, for which we apologize.
Who would like to start with introductions?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gisèle Jacob (Vice-President, Public Affairs, Mining Association of Canada):Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are very pleased to be here this morning to present our views and voice our commitment to the protection of endangered species in Canada.
My name is Gisèle Jacob and I represent the Mining Association of Canada. I'm accompanied this morning by Mr. Anthony Andrews, Executive Director of the Prospectors' and Developers' Association of Canada, Mr. David Comba, who is President of an exploration company by the name of Pentland Firth Ventures Ltd., and Mr. Michael Farnsworth, who is with Placer Dome Canada Ltd., in Vancouver.
Mr. Andrews and myself will be taking turns making our presentation this morning. Messrs. Comba and Farnsworth will be pleased to answer any detailed questions you may have or dealing with the specific operations of certain companies.
[English]
I would like to put a few overheads on right now. They will give you an outline of the issues we want to cover this morning.
I forgot to mention that I was also a member of the task force on endangered species, and along with other people on that task force worked diligently to come up with a good consensus document. When we reviewed Bill C-65 we certainly used the task force recommendations as a very important basis for judging the proposed legislation. We also used a screen against which we wanted to assess whether the provisions of the act will actually deliver on protecting species in Canada.
We used a number of criteria. First, will the act actually protect species? Is it feasible to protect the species that are being targeted under the act? Second, is the act based on cooperation, the way the task force strongly recommended, to recognize a cooperative approach and not follow the American model? Third, does the act reflect a concern for costs? Is cost-effectiveness included in the act? Four, are the proposals in the act, the agreements, the prohibitions, the recovery plans predictable and clear in terms of who will do what and within what timeframe? Those four criteria certainly influenced our review of the act.
.0840
My colleague, Dr. Andrews, will then give you general comments about the act and how we feel about certain things and about the overall approach of the act, under those five major headings. I will then give you comments on specifics, which is the next slide. I will cover five specific areas in the act where we would like to make comments on what is being proposed. This is the outline of our presentation.
As I mentioned to you earlier, I was a member of the minister's task force, and we worked very hard for 18 months to try to develop consensus on many of the issues related to the protection of species in Canada.
I also represent an organization that was heavily involved in another multi-stakeholder consensus process called the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. The Whitehorse Mining Initiative recognized many of the needs and requirements of the mining industry in Canada and of other stakeholders when we talk about land and land-related issues.
Certainly we are committed to a cooperative consensus process and to the protection of all species, regardless of whether they are threatened or not. The prevention approach is one we promote quite extensively.
As I mentioned earlier, the Whitehorse Mining Initiative was a very important turning point in our industry, not only because it reflected a commitment to the environment and to conservation matters, but also because we reached consensus with other stakeholders on how to achieve that. The WMI, again, served as a basis for our review of this act.
I mentioned the four criteria we used. They are very important criteria. In every decision we make on a daily basis, we determine if it has a impact on costs and if it's feasible, but mostly if it will achieve the results it was designed to.
I will now pass the microphone to my colleague, Dr. Andrews, who will give you general comments on the act.
Mr. Anthony Andrews (Executive Director, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada): Thank you, Gisèle.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada is a national organization that supports the exploration sector. We are in the business of searching for new mineral discoveries and finding new mines.
I have four general points to make before addressing some more specific comments.
First, the mining industry is committed to the protection of all species in Canada, whether endangered or not. Our industry will continue to use practices that respect wildlife habitats and ecosystems.
Second, we support the national approach to this initiative in that it is an effort to generate an effective, efficient regulatory regime and process for endangered species across confederation. We sympathize with this because we have been trying hard to generate a similar harmonized approach for the regulatory regime across confederation for the mining industry. There are significant challenges here, and we are certainly not there yet ourselves.
Third, the task force report referred to the fact that all Canadians have a role to play in species protection. We feel this particularly applies to our industry, because we do most of our work in Canada's rural areas and wilderness areas, and thus we live and work among wildlife species. There are both responsibilities and opportunities here, and our mining operators are already involved in activities that promote species protection and conservation of biodiversity.
Fourth, the mining industry, through the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation, recently endorsed the conservation of biodiversity. My own organization is in the process of modifying its Exploration Code of Practice, which we published in 1990, to reflect this.
.0845
I would now like to move to some more specific comments I will make with respect to two main subject areas. As you will see on the overhead, the first emphasizes the need for an integrated approach to species protection to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
With respect to the first bullet up there, we need to learn from our friends in the United States, whose approach has been based strictly on hard-hitting legislation that has been in place for about 23 years. They have spent literally billions of dollars and have succeeded in de-listing only 15 species out of about 970 that were listed.
The counsellor of the assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks of the United States Department of the Interior appeared before the task force. His recommendation was to remove disincentives, to give greater legitimacy to cooperative approaches and to give lead responsibilities to individual states in the United States, if they so wish. When he was asked what he would do if he could start with a clean slate, he emphasized the need for more carrot and less stick, the need for incentives for landowners and the importance of cooperative mechanisms. Let's not forget his advice.
The lesson we should learn from this is that an approach based on highly prescriptive, punitive legislation does not work. It promotes litigation and it's inefficient.
In concert with this advice, we strongly believe that the most effective and efficient approach will be one based on integration and cooperation.
With respect to integration, we are thinking in terms of a toolbox of different effective mechanisms, of which legislation forms one part, and also possibly a general framework. That toolbox would include voluntary actions, education, awareness, distribution of knowledge and information, incentives and economic instruments. In this context, we believe the preamble to the bill should set the legislation within the broader context of a national initiative employing an integrated approach and should clearly describe it as one tool in the protection of endangered species.
We are concerned that the spirit of the bill can be questioned when you see that 50 out of 107 clauses in the bill talk about ways and means to punish those who violate the remaining 57 provisions. I am hoping we are not following the American model of legislation, where most of the effort and financial resources are spent on policing and in the courts rather than on protection of the species themselves. We need an underlying spirit of cooperation, as opposed to strictly enforcement, and an approach based on integration.
Addressing the third bullet on the overhead, on the subject of national coverage, we in the mining industry believe all jurisdictional authorities need to be respected. It is not acceptable to treat provinces as junior partners in Confederation and assume their laws and programs are not as dependable as those of the federal government.
We believe the federal legislation should be as effective as possible within its recognized scope of authority, but likewise provincial legislation should be relied on in their jurisdiction. The use of powerful tools such as the Criminal Code or emergency orders to supersede the authority of the provinces should be discouraged. Again, effectiveness and efficiency will be best achieved on the basis of cooperation, trust and respect of all jurisdictions.
With respect to the fourth bullet up there, the point I'd like to make is that new legislation and regulations should be developed on the basis of a thorough review of all pre-existing legislation that relates to species and habitat protection, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. To avoid duplication, overlap and confusion, there should be a thorough house-cleaning of pre-existing legislation and an effort to integrate the new with what we want to keep from the old.
Finally, the last bullet on this slide deals with sustainable development. The approach to species protection in Canada should be based on sustainable development - a balance between environmental, social and economic factors. In this respect, we would like to see economic reality checks built into the process, particularly as it applies to legislation and regulations. Reality checks should be applied in the context of the federal government's regulatory reform initiative, which is being continued under the umbrella of the Building a More Innovative Economy program, which was implemented by the government in 1995.
.0850
The second subject area I would like to address relates specifically to recovery plans and a concern of the exploration sector of our industry that recovery plans be based on sound science. With respect to the exploration business, mineral deposits are where you find them and they're very difficult to find. Economic deposits are very rare. Only one in 100,000 discoveries will lead to an economic deposit. What we require is the largest land base in which to explore to make our exploration efforts a success.
There is an ever-diminishing land base in Canada, driven by the generation of an unending variety of designations that prohibit development activities. The concern is that recovery plans could lead to recommendation for habitat protection, which then becomes another avenue to decrease land available for exploration, especially if that protection is applied in a blanket fashion.
We know from long experience that exploration and mining activities can occur in most cases with a minimum of disturbance to wildlife species and habitat. It is common to have caribou, deer, bears, foxes, beavers, and many other forms of wildlife wander through our operating mine sites or even establish homes on our mine sites. They apparently care very little that we are there. A colleague of mine recently described to me the fact that a mining operation in northern Manitoba had an eagle establish a nest on the site during the operation of the mine. So there are many examples of successful coexistence of exploration mining and wildlife.
We would like to see sound science applied to recovery plans and habitat protection methods such that different development activities are considered in light of their different levels of impact. Recovery should not necessarily exclude all activities, and we believe that in the vast majority of cases exploration and mining activities will not be in conflict with recovery plans.
To illustrate our concern here, I draw your attention to a land withdrawal that was recently announced by the federal government on Bathurst Island, which is on this slide. The hatched area represents lands withdrawn for protection of the Peary caribou. The red dashed line represents an area of high mineral potential, which we refer to as the Cornwallis Fold Belt, and which has been included in the area withdrawn.
It's our understanding that the Peary caribou is endangered because of two reasons, primarily climatic conditions but exacerbated by hunting by local aboriginal groups. It has nothing to do with developmental activities. Yet the removal of these highly prospective lands is very negative for our industry.
We believe that it was unnecessary to include the Cornwallis Fold Belt in that withdrawn area. The only development activities you could foresee in that area would be exploration and mining. We believe that such activities could have been carried out with minimal or no impact on the herd, and you could even have special provisions to make sure that would happen. This is the exact kind of blanket approach to habitat protection that in our opinion is not based on sound science and is not necessarily in the interest of the Canadian public. We would certainly like to avoid that.
Mr. Chairman, that is the extent of my comments. Now I'd like to hand this back over to my colleague Gisèle Jacob, who will make further comments on the bill itself.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Jacob: I will go through this quickly. I know the time is limited. I identified five areas in the bill I would like to make some comments on, and where we feel there could be improvements made to the bill.
In addition to the spirit of cooperation that we would like the bill to further emphasize, there are specific provisions in the bill that we believe also require further improvements. The first part has to do with definitions. The definitions include definitions for critical habitat; however, the bill often refers to the term ``habitat'' without any definition of what it is. Furthermore, we even see ``important habitat'' referred to in the text. We believe there should be a further definition to include ``habitat'', since it is the term that is the most widely used in the entire piece of legislation.
.0855
We're also concerned about the word ``residence''. You will notice that the task force never used this term, that it was very specific when it talked about prohibitions to limit the prohibitions to the actual homes of the species. And why? Because we feel that the heart of this legislation is the recovery process, not the prohibitions, and that if we can limit prohibitions to the species and their immediate homes, then we can spend a lot more effort and energy in developing proper recovery plans that include how to properly manage the habitat of the species. The way ``residence'' is now defined, it can be anywhere where a species goes at any time in its lifespan. So certainly a restriction of the term ``residence'' is what we would recommend, and perhaps going back to the task force report on that score may be helpful.
In terms of the definition of habitat and critical habitat, I think all these things need to be further defined, because as you will see further in the bill when we talk about agreements and emergency orders, and you refer to these terms, it's very difficult to determine what the agreement will cover in terms of land area.
Another term we feel needs to be further clarified is again found in the definitions. When we talk about ``minister'' and ``responsible minister'' that is clear, and yet further on in the bill we talk about a ``responsible authority'' and there's no reference to exactly who that responsible authority is. So the entire section on definitions I think needs to be looked at very closely, and tightened and improved.
As I mentioned earlier, the fact that those definitions are not clear really affects the kinds of agreements the bill proposes to have with provinces and other organizations, because it's very difficult to determine what the land base of the agreement will cover.
In terms of prohibitions, again, because the term ``residence'' is not clear, we're concerned that prohibitions could be interpreted and challenged as covering habitat. We're also concerned about the use of the cruelty to animal provisions of the Criminal Code to address the issue of cross-boundary species. We believe in our industry that when it comes to cross-boundary species this is where the spirit of cooperation is needed. Provinces are equal partners in the protection of endangered species. We recognize their importance by having an accord that they have signed, by creating a council that can be used as a dispute mechanism and/or an area for further cooperation. Using the Criminal Code is perhaps a stronger tool than is required and one that unfortunately has to be tailored to fit the situation.
There are two concerns also related to the Criminal Code. Even though the bill explicitly says that it will be used for species crossing international boundaries, we don't see any reason why it could not be used for interprovincial species. The same provisions could apply to species that are cross-boundary in nature.
The other concern about using the Criminal Code, and another reason it doesn't fit well into addressing this issue, is that it only applies to animals, and the bill defines cross-boundaries to include not only the migratory patterns of the species but their range. If you're looking at the range of species, a lot of species have a range that crosses borders and a lot of plants also have a range that crosses borders, and yet the Criminal Code only addresses animals whose range crosses borders. Does this mean that provincial authorities are acceptable when it comes to plants, but not when it comes to animal species? So we find that there's a flaw in logic and it's too strong a tool to use to address the cross-boundary issue. Certainly the council and the accord would be a much better mechanism to do that with.
The emergency provisions of the act also cause concern. If you go back to the task force report, the task force clearly stated that we wanted due process to be followed in as many instances as possible. We strengthened the role of COSEWIC. We recommended legal legitimacy for what it was doing. And we recommended that emergency powers be used only when there truly was an imminent threat to the species.
.0900
However, the way it is written right now, we believe that emergency powers can be used in any instances where the government feels there may be a threat to a species. The situations where emergency orders can be used are very loosely defined, and there are no time limits on emergency orders. We believe that emergency orders should be in effect for one year and subject to renewal if the situation has not improved, but certainly there should be a time limit on how long an emergency order should be in effect, and within what conditions they could be applied.
I think the use of COSEWIC, the use of good science, and the use of research can protect species. The use of emergency orders should be used in very specific and limited circumstances. We're concerned, as I said, that the way the bill is written they can be used at the drop of a hat.
Recovery plans, as I said, we feel are the heart of the legislation, and that's where most of the effort, energy, money and resources should go to recover species and to help them thrive, not in court actions, not in litigation, not in prohibition, but through the recovery plan. That's why we believe stakeholders should be involved in the development of recovery plans, not just consulted, especially those who have an interest in the area affected by the presence of a species.
We're also very concerned about this approach called ``endangered species protection action'', which gives citizens the right to bring government to court for its failure to enforce the legislation. We recognize the rights of citizens to request information if there is a potential violation to the bill, but we are concerned about giving them the right to initiate court action.
We feel that the minister is accountable to Parliament and to the citizens of this country when it comes to ensuring the proper administration of the bill and to ensuring its compliance. We believe that no one else has this responsibility.
The bill will be reviewed in three years, and if compliance is a problem, then the bill should be modified to increase the level of compliance. The bill will also be reviewed every five years thereafter, and problems should be addressed in the revisions to the bill not by giving people the right to bring the government to court. Especially if you read those provisions in the bill, we're concerned that the reasons given citizens to bring forward a court action are based on terms such as ``not reasonable''or ``unreasonable'' - the minister not being reasonable or being perceived as being unreasonable. Those are very loose terms, and it could be very expensive if court actions are launched based on those expressions.
I will stop here. I think those were the main points I wanted to make regarding the text of the bill. Again, we impress upon you that we want to work with you. We believe we can operate within conservation goals also. I think we do have examples to tell you we can do that. We want to work with you to ensure we have a good bill to recover species, but that bill must be part of a broader toolbox and we're looking to you to make sure we have a good, strong piece of legislation that fits in within the spirit of prevention and cooperation.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Jacob.
I will now turn it over to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Martel (Director, Wildlife Habitats, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): My name is Jean-Pierre Martel and I am with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. I am a forester by training and am responsible for forestry issues for the Association.
First of all, I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee for this opportunity to present our views on a bill which we see as being highly significant and very much a priority.
[English]
Our focus today will be on how to facilitate the implementation of this bill and the conservation of endangered species in Canada, rather than focusing on the legal aspects of the bill.
In order to bring forward this practical perspective on the issue, I have with me two experts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. These two wildlife biologists will present our position. Our position has been developed through input from our biodiversity network, which is made up of foresters and wildlife biologists across our member companies. About 65 people have provided input into our presentation.
.0905
Rick Bonar is chief wildlife biolgist with Weldwood of Canada in Alberta, and John Gilbert is manager of fish and wildlife habitat with J.D. Irving in New Brunswick. Both will make the presentation on our behalf and on behalf of the biodiversity network.
Mr. Rick Bonar (Senior Wildlife Biologist, Western Region, Weldwood of Canada Ltd.): Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to divide our presentation into two parts. I will start off with an overview of our position, and John Gilbert will follow up with a conclusion that reiterates some of the points that were given by our friends in the Mining Association.
To start, we'd like to re-emphasize that the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association is in support of conservation of biodiversity, particularly conservation of endangered species in Canada. We believe the conservation of biodiversity is a key component of the concept of sustainable forest management, which the industry has subscribed to through various industry, interprovincial, federal-provincial and international initiatives. We believe, however, that the way to deliver on these commitments to the conservation of biological diversity and endangered species is the cooperative and partnership route rather than the regulation and litigation route.
The main point we'd like to stress is the need for cooperation among the federal government, provincial governments and NGOs. We'd like to see the resources invested in species conservation going towards effective conservation, not toward jurisdictional or legal wrangling. We're very firm in that direction. In our analysis of the report we show that there are some areas within the proposed bill where improvements are necessary in order to achieve these objectives.
Before I get into specific comments, I'd like to provide a little bit of an overview of the situation regarding existing endangered species, or species at risk in Canada, with respect to the influence of the forest industry.
There are some 276 species on the current list. About 60 of those dwell in forests. However, about 55 of those are on the list primarily because of difficulties with agricultural and urban development in Canada. Many of these are in southern Ontario, for example, where development has proceeded apace and the habitat for these species has been compromised. If you look at the national list, only about five of the 276 species are currently affected by forest industry activities.
The message we'd like to leave is that we're in pretty good shape in Canada with respect to the activities of the forest industry and endangered species, and we'd like to keep it that way. We want to work with the government at various levels to maintain our enviable position.
We have a more detailed brief, which has been submitted to the members. We'd like to see four major sections of the act improved. I'll describe the intent of the sections and then we'll get into a little bit more detail on each of those.
First is the listing section. We believe the listing process should proceed in an orderly and efficient manner, and that we should not get into the U.S. model, where listing decisions become the crux of the matter. People argue whether or not a species should be listed, because if it is listed, the opportunities after that are very restricted.
We think we should use the best available information to make a listing decision and then we should get to the heart of the matter, which, as the Mining Association said, is the recovery plan process. It's very important that we use scientific criteria in the listing decision and it should invoke a recovery plan process. What we would like to see is an orderly consideration of species by COSEWIC, a decision made as to whether or not to list, and then an immediate procedure into the recovery plan process.
.0910
In terms of prohibitions that are a consequence of listing, we believe the intent of the legislation should be to protect individuals of the species and to keep the options open during the preparation of the recovery plan process. We think this is critical.
We believe the recovery plan itself is the time to collect any additional information needed to develop an efficient recovery plan, including additional definition of what the habitat needs and what requirements of the species are. A full participation of the affected stakeholders; that the recovery plan must be developed in a cooperative manner; and that the actions to be taken, including protection of habitat, should be specified as part of the recovery plan process - we believe this is an orderly and efficient way to do things and concentrates our energy into the recovery, instead of the argument over whether a species is in trouble or not.
In the administration section, which is a catch-all term for the rest of the document, we think there are three main concerns that are important. The first is the need for federal-provincial cooperation, and we have some concerns about some of the clauses in the document that may not be encouraged by them. The second is the role of citizens in participating and litigating against this act. Last is the provision and allocation of resources, expertise, knowledge and funds.
I'll go back over those four areas in a little more detail. We're just going to hit the highlights. Our brief has considerably more detail on some of these issues.
Under the listing process, it currently says that COSEWIC will develop scientific criteria after the act is in place, and recommend those to the minister. We believe those criteria are very important and we can't emphasize enough the need to be on sound scientific ground in making listing decisions. We think they are important enough that they should be defined in advance and included in the act, and not subsequently developed by COSEWIC.
The other concern under listing is the definition of critical habitat, and this is somewhat similar to the mining association concern. Critical habitat is currently defined in the definitions as to be identified in the status report, and we don't believe this is the right place to address the issue of critical habitat. Later on we propose the definition of critical habitat be changed to be defined during the recovery plan process.
In most cases, when listing decisions are made, we think very little is known about the habitat of the species. As well, it will usually take a lot longer to define critical habitat at that stage of the process, and it will hold up the process. We would like to see the listing decision made on the best available information and the decisions about what to do with habitat included as part of the recovery plan process.
The other issue on priority of species selection is the act currently requires COSEWIC to assign species to a priority list, with the most urgent on the top of the list, and the act also provides opportunities for citizens to propose individual species for consideration by COSEWIC for the list. The concern is that we could get a number of nominations by citizens that COSEWIC must respond to under to the provisions of the draft legislation, and that would take away from the time COSEWIC should be spending on species that are ranked with most urgency by COSEWIC itself. There needs to be some way to resolve that difficulty.
.0915
Just to reiterate the habitat issue, we don't believe habitat should be addressed during the listing process, except provisions where there has been consideration for an emergency order and habitat issues would be affected by that. We think that would be very rare and not part of the normal workings of COSEWIC.
Under the prohibition section, the definition currently says don't kill, harm, harass, capture or take individuals. We're very concerned about some of these words because they're not defined clearly. We believe the intent should be that individuals of a species should receive automatic protection, but the meaning of words ``harm'', ``harass'' and ``take'' in particular are open to interpretation. In the U.S. the words ``harm'' and ``take'' have been interpreted to mean you cannot do anything that might influence the habitat of the individual. We reiterate that we think the habitat decision should be made as part of the recovery plan process, and that the automatic prohibition should prohibit actions taken against individuals of the species, and not relate to the habitat.
Similarly, the word ``residence'' is not clear. It's very ambiguous. Again, we support the idea that the residence should be the home of the species, but it's very important to draw the line between home and habitat. I guess a way to illustrate that might be to ask a few questions. It's easy to understand the residence of a beaver as its lodge, but does the residence of a beaver include the pond the lodge is within? Does it include the area the beaver cuts food in? You have to keep asking these questions, and pretty soon you get into an area of difficulty.
Another way to look at it might be how you define the residence of a plant, because those organisms are covered under the act. Our position is if you can't provide some clear definitions on those words, they should be removed from the act so that it's clear no actions will be taken against habitat as part of the automatic prohibitions. This is consistent with the position of the task force.
Currently the draft says that recovery must be based on biological and technical feasibility. We would like to emphasize that recovery decisions should also include social and economic considerations, and that our resources in recovery plans should be directed to maximize conservation benefit. In other words, we'd like to see the recovery resources allocated to species where we have the best chance of achieving recovery, not directed into a black hole where recovery may be either hopeless or of limited benefit to society.
Mr. Chairman, there are only so many resources to devote to these recoveries, and we need to be practical and pragmatic in how we allocate those resources. As I said earlier, critical habitat in the definitions should be changed to apply to the recovery plan process, not to the status report.
Finally, the act does not mention any provision for compensation to affected parties and individuals who have legitimately been damaged by any actions that may arise as part of a recovery plan. We feel that's an important part that should be added to the legislation.
I'll now pass it over to John Gilbert, who will conclude our presentation.
Mr. John Gilbert (Manager, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, J.D. Irving Ltd.): Thank you, Rick, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the administration section, we believe the federal action for trans-boundary animal species as proposed in the legislation may cause antagonism between federal and provincial because there are a lot of cross-boundary species along the Canadian-U.S. border, and also between provinces. These mandates may be very unclear. As a person who deals with animals and plants that occur across cross-boundary habitats, this could be fuzzy and hard to deal with by either party, especially the parties such as the small-concern woodlot owner, or even up to a large company, who'll really have trouble managing these types of species.
.0920
We believe the federal government should work very closely with the provincial government to ensure that both parties are very clear on this. Currently we deal with a number of regulations in which there is jurisdictional overlap. The Federal Fisheries Act would be a typical example whereby some of the habitat provisions have been passed to the provinces. The federal government has retained certain other aspects of their authority. When it comes time to do permits, as is a very common occurrence in forestry operations, we have conflicting legislation and conflicting enforcement. This is very confusing for both the small farmer and woodlot owner and larger companies.
We believe citizens' roles should be very positive in this legislation. If citizens' agencies feel that the government is not performing they should have recourse to perhaps provide litigation against the governments in question. However, the citizen's role to actively provide litigation against an individual should be based on science, and should be based on some of the recommendations of COSEWIC. We believe this particular clause should be changed and improved in the new bill.
Resources are not identified. There are limited resources today, as my friend,Jean-Pierre Martel, explained originally. These should not be diverted from successful conservation programs currently in operation. There is going to be a lot of new money required for this particular bill, and we believe this should be identified through a resource impact assessment statement. Again, a lot of this is contained in our submission.
To wrap things up, we have a typical example across the border in the U.S. We believe this is an approach that is not to be followed. We believe there is a Canadian approach, where we can work amongst the federal, provincial and NGO groups, of which we consider ourselves a partner. The theme should be cooperation, not litigation.
The big theme here, I believe, is prevention. Once animals or plants get to the situation where they are endangered, your options are severely limited. That's where we feel a big part of this bill should be directed. There should be incentives instead of litigation and prohibitions in the act. There are not enough wardens or enforcement staff to adequately cover any part of the country.
We believe for this act to work there should be incentives for the small woodlot owner or the small operator, the ordinary citizen, to get involved, to feel positive about this, to be able to feel proud about taking a piece of land out of the production he originally bought it for and donating it, or changing his avenue of operation to include this type of legislation.
There should be partnerships as well, partnerships between industry. We are all involved now in green certification. A lot of the forest companies are. This endangered species conservation legislation, we feel, is very positive. Our attempt is to show that the industry is sustainable. We are doing our forestry operations on the basis of an environmentally sound ecosystem.
Furthermore, there should be assistance as well for the small operator or the large operator to get involved. If there is some sort of property taken out of production for what the original owner purchased it for there should be some assistance, perhaps some monetary or tax relief. We believe this is a very important and key aspect to get everyone involved in this and be more positive and more proactive in stress prevention.
.0925
We feel that the forest industry can be a major partner in achieving this legislation. We feel very positive about it, and that with some minor changes to the act as it is proposed right now we will be able to work with it and feel very positive about being a partner.
Jean-Pierre.
Mr. Martel: That is basically our presentation, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to mention - I forgot to, at the beginning - I was also a member of the task force that made recommendations to the Minister of the Environment on this issue. I have been one of the members - along with my colleague from the Mining Association - very involved with this process for the last 18 months or two years.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before recognizing the next witness, let me simply comment on what I've heard so far by saying that the legislation would not be here for discussion if we had behaved in a responsible manner so far. I'm referring to all those who are active out there in a variety of ways, not only on this continent but also on other continents, who have somehow, through a variety of human activities, made it necessary for Canada to ratify the convention in 1992 - the first nation to do so - and to finally produce this type of legislation.
This morning I hear only comments such as ``define better here'', ``don't do that'', ``let's prevent litigation'', ``make sure there are only carrots but no sticks,'' and all sorts of signals of caution, when we are dealing with a situation that requires some measures of strength. We are in an emergency; otherwise we wouldn't be here. If all of us collectively had done things in a responsible way, we wouldn't need this legislation. Species wouldn't be endangered, as they are now.
I hope you will reflect on what you have said this morning a little bit further before asking this committee to do all these little items of manicuring here and there. The situation requires some pretty strong measures on behalf of the public and on behalf of future generations, if we want to have some wildlife left. This is why we are here today, because the greatest danger to the endangered species is the human species and human activities. We have to recognize that fact.
So, Mr. Bennett, with this kind of bridge, would you like to walk us through your thoughts, please?
Mr. Dave Bennett (National Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you, Mr. Chair. You took the words out of the Canadian Labour Congress's mouth.
The Canadian Labour Congress is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the committee. We are appearing with the trade associations, with some of whom we have a working relationship. Our appearance in this particular session may suggest that we have a socio-economic interest in endangered species legislation. This is true. I would like to point out also that the Canadian Labour Congress's environment committee has the mandate of the protection of our environment, and the first question we ask is does this measure effectively protect our environment - in this case the species that inhabit it.
We have an observer, Mr. Kim Pollock, of the International Woodworkers of America, IWA-Canada. The IWA is a leading member of the CLC environment committee, and was instrumental in developing the CLC's position. IWA-Canada will present its own central concerns at your hearings in Vancouver.
The CLC is the major central labour body of Canada, comprising over two million members across the country, in both public and private sectors. All of our members have an interest as citizens in the protection of endangered species. Many workers come into contact with endangered or threatened species as parks officials, game wardens, agriculture and forestry workers, government employees, and many others. This point of contact - of workers with living species - forms the focus of this submission.
.0930
The CLC environment committee, on which all of the groups of workers listed above are represented, has worked with the Endangered Species Coalition for the past two years, and supports the aspirations of the coalition in regard to the future and the improvement of Bill C-65. Along with the coalition, we welcome Bill C-65 as a useful and essential first step in a national scheme for the protection of endangered species.
The federal government has created obligations for itself by signing the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, by committing itself to a response to the endangered species task force, and in a national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada. We ask that this committee respond to all these ventures and organizations, and at the same time incorporate the concerns of the workers and their communities, which we have set down below in this submission.
We have two equally important concerns that we regard as essential to an effective piece of federal legislation. The first is that while Bill C-65 is a first step, and only part of a federal-provincial puzzle, it nevertheless does not make full use of the powers the federal government has accorded itself, and which it indicates it will exercise to protect endangered species.
The second concern is that the bill does not effectively address the concerns of workers and communities who come into contact with endangered species and who may be strongly affected by a bill in which we argue the federal government should make the full use of its powers.
We would like to remind the committee that sustainable communities are a recurrent theme of Agenda 21, which arose out the the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, in 1992. The needs of workers and communities are specifically addressed in the UNCED statement of forest principles, 1992, particularly in sections 2 and 9.
Essentially the bill aspires to protect three categories of endangered species: aquatic species, certain migratory birds, and species on federal lands. Here the federal government could extend its authority in two major ways. The first is to extend protections of all species to those crossing national borders, in accordance with the government's international authority. It is not enough to suggest that these could be covered at some future date by regulation - clause 33. They need to be covered now and in actual practice through the requirements of Bill C-65.
The second extension of the government's authority should be to protect all species that cross provincial and territorial boundaries - in other words, to species migrating across provincial boundaries, or which have a range extending across such a boundary. This provision for interprovincial species is compatible with the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada, which calls for complementary legislation and multi-jurisdictional cooperation on recovery plans that cross borders within Canada.
The federal government could conform to the spirit of the national accord by introducing provisions to Bill C-65 that would delay for up to two years the implementation of the interprovincial aspects of the bill, giving time for the relevant provinces to reach agreement on implementation of the standards set down in the federal acts, and giving time for the federal government to reach agreement on a procedure for those species crossing the boundaries between federal lands and the provinces. After that time, the government would implement the federal-provincial and provincial-provincial provisions, preferably under the terms of agreements reached in the interim. One possibility is that the minister is satisfied that the interprovincial arrangements meet the standards and their implementation set down in the federal act, and therefore do not need to be realized under federal law.
The scope of the work of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada will be extended accordingly. It should be remembered that the national accord is only an agreement over intentions and procedures. Unless some time limits are put on the implementation of the accord's intentions, we are likely to see a continued yawning void in a national scheme over those species crossing internal borders.
The second way in which the government should make full use of its existing powers concerns habitat and recovery plans. Habitat protection is not available for migratory birds. Even for those species covered by the bill, habitat protection is not required; it is optional. Threats to an endangered species' habitat must be addressed in a recovery plan, but recovery plans have no legal force. The government has given itself total discretion over what measures, if any, in a recovery plan will be implemented, including the all-important habitat protection, contrary to the terms of the national accord.
.0935
The same discretion applies to emergency protection. There is no requirement that the minister issue an emergency order, even if COSEWIC has made an emergency listing. Also there is to be advance review of projects affecting endangered species and their habitat only where such a review is already required under other federal legislation.
These failures are even more pertinent when we consider that the government already has such constitutional powers over fish habitat, which it has realized in the Fisheries Act yet has failed to do in Bill C-65. The government may use its powers under such acts - a power which only points up the discrepancy between the two pieces of legislation. The bill must be strengthened to make the implementation of habitat protection regulations mandatory, including the obligation on federal government departments to comply with them, with a provision for full public review and remedy if the government decides not to protect a species' critical habitat or other serious threats to endangered species.
On the question of the government's powers, we believe that the government has made an ill-advised move in determining that COSEWIC will ``advise'' on listing and that the cabinet will make the listing decision. This is a step backwards from the 1995 draft legislated proposal. Bill C-65 must be amended to provide that the scientific committee will make listing decisions, not just advise the government. There is, after all, a great deal of difference between decisions over threats to species - which are a scientific matter - and the policies that are to flow from them, which are properly the business of those with political powers and legislative mandate. To mix the two is bad policy.
Our second and equally important area of concern is that the government has failed to address the predicament of workers and communities in the framing of species recovery plans and their consequences for habitat and other activities impinging on the fate of species. The only provision of the act that deals with this area of interest is clause 39, which requires consultation with aboriginal peoples in the context of wildlife management boards set up under land claims. All other consultation is optional. It needs to be pointed out that the consultation with the aboriginal peoples that the bill requires is very restricted in scope, and there is no obligation to consult with anyone else, including workers and their communities. Such consultation should be wide and obligatory.
But even this does not meet our concerns. We recommend the insertion of a clause into the bill requiring that the needs and predicament of workers and their communities be addressed. This does not mean that such matters should override protective measures. It means that among the salient considerations in a recovery plan, the economic and social impact on human beings - including their health and safety - must be addressed, so that they form an integral part of a recovery plan. For instance, when there are restrictions on logging to protect species habitat, logging moves to areas that seriously endanger the safety of workers.
Further, where this is found not to have been done, the courts, under the endangered species protection act provisions, should be empowered to award - definitively - economic and other redress for the losses that communities and their workers incur. The impediments the bill places in the way of such actions, such as the requirement that a court find the government's response unreasonable, should be removed.
Should the government finally come out with an act that extends and realizes its national authority over endangered species and at the same time safeguards workers and communities, it will have produced a piece of environmental legislation that is a credit to Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
We now can proceed, unless there are other witnesses at the table who wish to speak.Mr. Comba? Mr. Farnsworth?
Mr. Michael Farnsworth (Public Affairs, Placer Dome Canada Ltd.; Mining Association of Canada): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge some comments.
First of all, you had mentioned something to the effect that legislation would not be up for discussion if we had behaved responsibly before, and that the greatest danger to species is the human species itself. I would like to acknowledge that. I can understand that.
I work with a mining company, and I don't see this as a black and white issue. I don't see it as a matter of either all enforcement or all collaboration. There's a balance there. Any legislation needs to have some teeth - I recognize that. But by the same token, I think that our industry - and it sounds like the pulp and paper industry as well - has gone down quite a long road working together with other stakeholders. I think we are in a collaborative mode, a situation where the various parties together can collaborate to a very large extent.
.0940
I would like to make one other comment. It's been noted a couple of times about a focus on recovery of species. I strongly agree that we focus on recovery of species, perhaps working together with people in the nearby communities, whether they be aboriginal or some of the environmental groups, labour, maybe the schoolchildren in some communities, on collaborative programs on this very thing.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth, for your helpful intervention.
We have a list of members who would like to ask questions. We will try to respect the ten-minute rule.
At a certain point I will hand over the chair to one of the vice-chairs, Madam Payne, so as to be able to introduce a private member's bill on credit cards in the House. I will be back in as short a time as possible. I hope you will understand my reasons for being absent for a short while.
The list reads as follows: Monsieur Asselin, Madam Jennings, Mr. Knutson and Mr. Adams.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): I followed with great interest our witnesses' presentations this morning. I did not wish to interfere with the proceedings of the Committee because we were receiving testimony from witnesses who had prepared themselves and travelled to Ottawa in order to be given a hearing. However, I could have interrupted quite a few times to call both the Chairman and the witnesses to order, since the witnesses were referring to a bill that does not exist. You keep referring to Bill C-65 which has been tabled in the House of Commons, but has not in fact ever been debated. The normal practice is to debate the bill and wait until the House of Commons refers it to a committee for consideration. However, at no time were we mandated by the House of Commons to consider Bill C-65.
Our witnesses this morning have been had. They came here well prepared and referred in their presentations to various clauses of the bill and the Act, when in fact all of this was out of order. As a member of the Official Opposition, I refrained from interrupting the proceedings out of politeness for our witnesses, who travelled to Ottawa for this meeting, but I am sure they will be our last witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you we will put as much energy into this challenge as we normally do into achieving an effective piece of legislation. If we do not have the Committee's consent to suspend proceedings until the bill has been debated in the House and the House has referred it to the Committee for consideration, I can assure you we will be constantly interrupting the proceedings in order to present motions, raise points of order and so forth.
The Bloc québécois has always cooperated fully when bills are being considered in committee. Of course, the Bloc québécois has contributed always greatly to the government's success.
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I would like to ask.
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, you may ask your question, but I would first like to respond to your political statement by saying that the same procedure was followed for Bills C-44 and C-45. We conducted our work pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), just as we are doing now. So far, just like the other members of the Committee, you have been questioning witnesses pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).
I certainly understand your frustration and I very much appreciate the fact that you and your party have said you were prepared to cooperate with the Committee for the purposes of considering this bill. Now, please feel free to ask your question.
.0945
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know when the bill will be tabled in the House and who asked that it be considered before it had been tabled. We have never been given a mandate by the House of Commons. We are summoning witnesses to Ottawa to present their views on a bill that the Committee is not mandated to consider.
Just because there is a precedent or mistakes were made elsewhere - you referred to Bill C-45 - does not mean we have to repeat those mistakes here. Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that the Minister is required to table the bill in the House of Commons, that the bill must then be debated for at least three hours, and that it is only subsequent to that debate that the House of Commons officially asks the Committee to consider the bill. We have not been given that mandate, Mr. Chairman. The House has referred quite a few things to us that we have set aside. So, let's comply with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and consider those items that have been referred to us for consideration. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Bloc québécois will participate fully in consideration of this bill once the Committee has been given a mandate.
The Chairman: We appreciate that. However, there are many precedents, notably Bills C-44, C-45 and C-25. We are holding meetings pursuant to Standing Order 108 and, if you still want to ask your question, you have five minutes left.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I will not be asking any questions about the legislation because it has not been tabled in the House of Commons - that is to say, it has been tabled, but never debated. There must be at least a three-hour debate on the bill, and we must be given an official mandate by the House of Commons before we consider this legislation.
The Chairman: The Standing Orders also allow us to proceed with the work we have scheduled for this morning pursuant to Standing Order 108. If you don't want to ask questions, that is your choice.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Committee to immediately suspend formal business. If that request is refused, we intend to move a motion in the next few minutes asking that the Committee suspend proceedings until the bill has been debated in the House and the Committee has received its mandate.
If questions are put by members of the Liberal Party or Reform Party with respect to specific clauses of the bill or the Act, I intend to raise a point of order each time someone speaks.
The Chairman: You don't need to raise a point of order, Mr. Asselin. You can simply use the time factor; in any case, I am telling you that we are holding these proceedings this morning pursuant to Standing Order 108. There are many precedents in that respect. Up until now, you have been questioning other witnesses. You questioned those witnesses, just as other Committee members did, pursuant to the same provision of the Standing Orders. If you don't want to ask questions now, that is your choice.
Mrs. Jennings.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions to ask and I would like someone to write them down so that you can provide me with an answer as quickly as possible.
When will the bill be tabled in the House of Commons for the purposes of debate? Who requested that this bill be considered in Committee before such a debate had occurred? The Committee has never received a mandate from the House of Commons to consider Bill C-65. You cannot deny that, Mr. Chairman. You cannot say that the Bloc québécois is hindering the work of the Committee this morning. It is the Minister himself who is at fault. All he has to do is take the bill to the House Leader and table it in the House so that it can be debated. I wonder whether it is not the Minister who is endangered, rather than species.
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, I very much appreciate the question. We have three House Leaders and as soon as they have agreed on the procedure to be followed, we will have a debate at second reading. You know full well what the Standing Orders say.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I have every right... You already have proof of that - indeed, we all do. You asked for unanimous consent from all parties for travel to Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto. We agreed, but naive as we were, we did not realize the bill had not been debated in the House of Commons. The proof of that is that the Bloc québécois has now refused any travel in Canada as long as there has been no debate and the House has not given a mandate to the Committee.
.0950
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, I would again respond by saying there are precedents. The Transport Committee travelled to various regions as part of its consideration of Bill C-44. When it did so, it was subject, just as we are now, to the provisions of Standing Order 108. So, there are precedents, and there is nothing irregular or unlawful about this kind of proceeding.
Mr. Asselin: I'm sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that just because something creates a precedent doesn't mean it is legal.
The Chairman: Yes, it is legal.
Mr. Asselin: A precedent means you can do certain things if there is unanimous consent, but the simple fact that there is a precedent doesn't automatically mean what you are doing is legal. Just because someone did something inappropriate does not mean we have to do the same.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Asselin, but I would invite you to read Standing Order 108(2).
[English]
Madam Jennings, it's your turn now.
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): First of all, my Bloc colleague does raise a concern, probably a serious concern, and I would not want to waste the time of our witnesses here or the taxpayers' dollars. They've come a long way. We've already invested that time. But I would ask that this committee look at the concern that's been raised and that we deal with it before we do such future issues like this. I myself am not familiar with Standing Order 108(2), but I certainly will take a look at it.
I'd like to tell you all that I appreciate your coming this morning, and I was very interested in what you had to present. I'm a bit of a novice here. I have not been on the environment committee very long, so perhaps I don't have the expertise that some of my colleagues have. However, there are some things I'm concerned about. I'm going to give you a list of the questions for whoever wants to answer them.
With regard to mining, I'm concerned about the crown land or federal land involved in exploration. I don't know, Mrs. Jacob, Mr. Comba and Mr. Andrews, if mining is always involved in federal lands or crown lands, or if there are cases when it's not. Are you always going to be impacted by this act if it comes into play? It does in fact occur on federal lands, if that's what they're concerned about here.
The other thing is that when we heard the cattlemen, the ranchers and the farmers speak the other day, they spoke of the task force and how they felt it did deal with 80% of the issues. But there was a good 20% they felt was not included. I think they felt a little hurt because in the past, under their own voluntary initiative, they had been working to address some of the concerns that we all admit have occurred in the past. They've asked why it wasn't acknowledged, at least in the preamble. I wonder if you have concerns such as this. Did you feel that the task force did not deal with this when it put the bill together?
On the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, I wonder how you see that. If we can in fact correct.... Perhaps we have been lax in the past and we haven't addressed that there are initiatives put forward by our mining communities, by the pulp and paper industry, by even the labour union. I'm sure they too have some initial concerns that they could have put forward in this sense. Should we have had a report? Should there be a yearly status report?
For instance, with the Whitehorse initiatives, is there some way that we could know now? I don't know how long the Whitehorse initiatives have been in play, but could we know now what's been done so that when we, as members of Parliament, are dealing with these issues we can look and say, oh, this is being done, this concern is being addressed? We should be aware that we are indeed partnerships in action right now, that we are indeed working together in our country.
Just before I go to pulp and paper, the corridor.... As I understand it, the Cornwallis Fold Belt that's been a withdrawn area...this was mentioned, maybe by you, Mr. Anderson. Do you see a part that maybe shouldn't be withdrawn? Is there a section of it that you feel should be withdrawn? Is there a workable solution there? As you say, you believe that the caribou are reducing because of climatic change and perhaps the aboriginal issue as well, if mining had any impact on that.
As for pulp and paper, I have two questions. You are very concerned about the citizens' role. I sensed an underlying feeling that in the past you perhaps have felt that concerns have been raised that may not have been substantiated by fact. Maybe you feel there's too much of an environment of feeling. The heart is there instead of the mind. I'd like to know what your thoughts are.
On partnerships assistance, do you really see this assistance as monetary or do you see it more as tax relief?
.0955
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry; that's a lot of questions.
Mr. Andrews: Thank you for your questions. I will endeavour to answer numbers one and four.
Your first question, if I understand you correctly, was whether exploration and mining activities are involved in all crown lands. Is that correct?
Mrs. Jennings: Is it always federal crown lands?
Mr. Andrews: No. It's provincial crown land as well. The provinces have jurisdiction over a vast part of Canada's land mass.
Mrs. Jennings: But not private lands?
Mr. Andrews: There are some instances where crown lands are not accessible to us - for instance, the designation of parks where we have lands withdrawn for aboriginal land claims. But most of the mining acts tell us we can still have access even to private lands as long as we have permission from the owner. The surface ownership and the ownership of the mineral resources are usually separate.
In terms of question number four on the Cornwallis Fold Belt, the answer is yes. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on this. We are not against a generation of protected areas and protection of habitat. We recognize there is a problem up there with this particular Peary caribou herd.
So, no, we're not saying no land should have been removed, but we do feel there could have been a solution there by drawing that boundary to avoid the highly prospective area of the Cornwallis Fold Belt. It's based on the fact that in our experience we see that exploration and mining can be conducted with a very minimal disruption of wildlife.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We'll go to Mr. Knutson with the next question, please.
A voice: I'm not sure all her questions were answered.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I'm sorry; I thought you were finished.
Mrs. Jennings: The answers are not back yet.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Somebody else? Mrs. Jacob.
Mrs. Jacob: You asked a question about the remaining 20% of the task force recommendations and how we react to that. We recognize that a lot of the work the task force did over the past18 months is reflected in the current proposals. However, I would agree with some of the comments you've heard that some of the recommendations have not been included in the bill.
More than that, I think if I were to be disappointed in terms of having worked on the task force - and perhaps Monsieur Martel can give you his point of view also - a bit of the spirit the task force was looking to impart in the new legislation.... One was the recognition that the legislation was one tool in a broader toolbox, that it had a legitimate role to play but as one tool in how to truly address endangered species.
I think we were very thorough in recommending criteria and timeframes and in being very clear in terms of the extent of authorities we would like this to put forward. One of the reasons I think the members of the task force recognized was the need for predictability, to know who was responsible for what and when things would happen.
I think especially the conservation members of the task force recognize that the industry can only work in a system that is as predictable as possible. We feel the predictability we injected into the task force is not as clearly highlighted in the proposed bill as we would have liked. A lot of the conditions that allow things to happen are much more loosely described in the bill than the task force recommended they be.
Mrs. Jennings: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I'm required in the House immediately. I apologize. I hope someone else asks the questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mrs. Jennings. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much.
I just want to ask various members who were in the task force that led up to this legislation if there was a consensus in your group on citizens' applications.
Mr. Martel: I'll try to answer that question. Basically I think what's very interesting about the task force report and the task force as such is that we all came from different perspectives with different backgrounds. We all learned. I think we all reached some sort of a centre part. We started at the extremes in some cases and we achieved a lot of commonalitites on many of the elements.
.1000
One of the elements.... What we tried to do in the report was to make sure that people like you who will make decisions about the new legislation would know where we had consensus and where we didn't and what the different positions were so it would be clear to you why we didn't have a consensus. One of those points was the citizen's right to sue or take civil action. Some members felt the role of the enforcement of legislation is the role of government. Some other people said it was not enough and that citizens should have the right to enforce or force government to implement the legislation further.
I think there are various other ways of doing that and achieving the same objective. We agree with the need for citizens to get more involved with this, but we don't agree with the mechanisms that are being proposed.
Mr. Knutson: So there was no consensus on this?
Mr. Martel: No, there was no consensus.
Mr. Knutson: As I read the bill, clauses 56 through 60 would deal with the citizen applications. The trigger effect is that the minister has acted unreasonably, that basically the citizens don't have a right to bring an action unless they can satisfy that test. On the face of it, that seems pretty reasonable to me. We have a tradition that occasionally we get ministers of the environment who don't act to protect the environment. This seems to be a safety net where if ministers don't do their job a citizen can come forward, apply to a judge, satisfy the test and then bring an action. Given the bar or test of reasonableness by the minister that has to be satisfied, what's the problem?
Mr. Martel: My colleague will complement this answer.
I think one of the issues we have with this is exactly the point you're talking about. What's reasonable? Once again, I think it's going to be up to the judge to decide what's reasonable. Once again, we're going back to the notion of litigation and making sure resources will be dedicated to deal with the conservation of those species rather than focusing on those legal aspects.
We thought it might be misused in some cases and that it would divert some of the energy and resources on those issues rather than focusing on the species.
Mr. Bonar: I'd like to reinforce that. If the minister, for example, has the option of dismissing an application as being frivolous, the applicant could in theory decide that the minister's decision that his application was frivolous was not the answer he wanted to hear and could apply to a judge for a ruling that it was an unreasonable ruling by the minister.
If you take it as a devil's advocate, all the applicant would have to do is find a sympathetic judge on a particular issue, then we're into a litigatory regime. We believe very strongly -
Mr. Knutson: What provision should there be - to take the devil's advocate - if the minister is being unreasonable?
Mr. Bonar: We think the recourse there is through the parliamentary system in our democracy. If a citizen is not happy with the response the minister provides, his recourse is at the ballot box.
Mrs. Jacob: I agree with what you've heard from our colleagues from the pulp and paper industry. We certainly had long discussions in the task force on this issue of civil enforcement. Again, we're concerned that the way the powers are given to citizens to bring in a civil action is based on judgmental words such as reasonable, not reasonable or unreasonable.
There are other pressures to bear on ministers not doing a proper job or including the review of the act that is going to occur on a regular basis, including the court of public opinion rather than the courts of justice, which are very expensive. We wanted to avoid the route of litigation as being our recourse for solving issues in Canada. That's often how they use it in the States. It's an expensive process and I don't think we've seen any evidence that it is working well.
Mr. Knutson: The point is that perhaps the species can't wait for a change in government to get a new minister in who is going to do his job. Occasionally we get ministers of the environment who are pretty lax. Democracy is not perfect; governments aren't perfect. I think the legislation implicitly acknowledges that and puts a provision in where a citizen can go and have to satisfy a test, has to pass a threshold -
.1005
Mrs. Jacob: In the act a citizen has a right to request an investigation and an action. If the answer is unsatisfactory, then there are other ways than immediately to launch a legal action. There are other ways for the person who gets an answer that is not satisfactory to him or her. There are other actions that person can engage in before going to court.
Mr. Knutson: Through changing the government.
Mrs. Jacob: No, not necessarily. As I said, there is the court of public opinion. There are caucus discussions, cabinet discussions, there could be pressure from the new council that the act endorses, the federal-provincial accord. There are many avenues other than costing taxpayers money to bring an action in court.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
Let me ask questions to the representatives from the mining industry. You emphasized in your submission the need for sound science. You use the example of the protection of the caribou herd that wasn't really based in science. We've also heard from other witnesses and from the task force that the listing of species as endangered should be purely a scientific process through COSEWIC, that there shouldn't be political intervention at the cabinet level or whatever, that we should just throw it open to COSEWIC to make the decision and that they're going to make their decision purely on science. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Andrews: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Knutson: COSEWIC is being developed to make decisions without politics entering into the way they make decisions. They make a recommendation as to what's listed, but the final decision on listing is made by the cabinet, by the government. That process has been criticized by certain environmental groups as allowing politics to interfere with science.
You seem to be making the same argument that when we protected the island, we didn't do it on the basis of science, we did it on the basis of politics. I'm just taking the logic of your argument about protecting the island. Would you also agree COSEWIC should be the final authority on what's listed, given that they're a scientific group?
Mr. Andrews: I think there's room for both of these. It would be very nice if we could have decisions based on sound science, no matter what level they are, whether at the COSEWIC level or at the political level. As long as the people at the political level have accurate information on which they can base their decision, then that should work.
Mr. Knutson: Let me go back to one of the recurring themes - I think it came from all the groups - the emphasis on recovery plans and not prohibitions.
What we acknowledge as a starting point.... By the time we're into a recovery plan, we're into what inherently is an inefficient use of our resources. In a general sense if we can prevent the species from going down the list of being vulnerable and then endangered, if we can stop that type of activity, usually prohibiting that type of activity is a far better use of resources than the recovery plans, which by their very nature are very expensive. Often they don't work. I've heard some environmentalists suggest that when a species gets too far down the line, you should just let it die out, because your money is better spent trying to prevent other species from getting to the same point.
Your message was that the emphasis should be more on the recovery plan and less on prohibition. That seemed to me to contradict that we want our activities to be as efficient as possible.
Mrs. Jacob: Our comment relates to recovery plans, including proper management of the habitat in which those species live. The prohibitions would apply to the species only and not their habitat.
That's where we see the difference. The prohibitions are legitimate as they are applied to the species and their immediate homes. But the value of the act is in the work that is being done on the habitat to prevent further decline of the species and to recover it. That's where we feel very strongly.
If you put prohibitions on habitats, what do you do with urban expansion? Didn't past witnesses say that most of the species that are now threatened are found in the southern part of this country where there are cities, where most people live? How do you address that? How do you address urban expansion if you put prohibitions on habitat?
.1010
What you're looking for, or what we would like to see, is the careful management of the habitat, which includes recovery plans and ability for species not to be further threatened by the habitat in which they live. We can't stop urban expansion. We can't stop the population from needing the cities they live in, and needing the infrastructure to live in.
Mr. Knutson: No, but sometimes we can control it creatively to find a way we can still have cities and not kill off species.
Mrs. Jacob: We feel recovery plans are the best means to do that, not prohibitions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Knutson. Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here, and I thank those of you who have participated in the process so far. My sense is that we both want some sort of national protection for endangered species. The debate is about what it should be like.
You have a sense this morning of the environment in which we work. I suspect everybody here is very keen to see something go through. We have all sorts of things taking away our energy and so on.
It seems to me the habitat discussion is the crux of it. As somebody said yesterday, it's not human beings shooting these species or trampling on some near-extinct plant; it's actually a habitat problem. If we could solve the habitat problem - and you're talking about applying our resources to the problem - 80% to 90% of the thing would be solved. We're human beings, and we live on the planet. We have cities, we have farms and so on, but habitat is where it's at.
To our friends from the pulp and paper industry - and I'd be glad for comments from the others - on your point that habitat should be defined in the recovery plan rather than in the listing, just for starters on that, who should determine the definition of habitat in the recovery plan? As well, how would you ensure that this definition is based on science?
Mr. Bonar: Perhaps I could have a go at that. I think I can allude to the other fellows' point there, too, that the habitat issue is key. We would like to see preventative measures, outside of this particular bill, aimed at conservation of habitat, primarily directed at preventing species from being listed. We think the bulk of our efforts should be that way.
So don't misinterpret our desire for actions on habitat within the bill as taking away from that approach. We think that's the way to do it. By the way, we think this will also help recover a large number of species that have been listed.
Our point is that once a species has been designated to be in trouble, we then need to efficiently look at the habitat and decide what's the best way to recover that species, including habitat actions.
As a scientist who knows all about the fallibility of science and the fine line between science and politics, it's fair to say that science cannot give us definitive answers at the stage of listing, and in fact probably not at the stage of recovery plan, on exactly whether or not a particular habitat issue is important. Usually when we get to the listings stage we have very limited knowledge of the species. By definition, it's usually rare, and difficult to study. We don't know its distribution. We know very little about its habitat. Often we just take a shot in the dark. It's based on scientific opinion and our best go at it, but it really is not based on a definitive answer that's unequivocal.
The point we want to make is that in the process of developing the recovery plan you have a little bit of a breathing space to get a little bit better information on the population and on its habitat and then design a more informed solution to recover the species. If we expend resources at the status report stage trying to do that, we likely will not succeed. That will then burden us, if you will, during the recovery plan process if we have put in automatic prohibitions.
.1015
Mr. Adams: So in terms of your beaver lodge and beaver pond and beaver whatever-it-is, you don't see COSEWIC playing any role in defining whether it's the large -
Mr. Bonar: We would like to see COSEWIC summarize the available information in the status report. Get what we know out there and also identify what we don't know.
Mr. Martel: You're raising a very important point that we spent some time on. It is a point we've been discussing very much within the task force, and actually we have consensus on it within the task force.
In addition to the practical aspect and the scientific aspect that Rick mentioned, there is one important thing. When we met with the task force, at one point somebody from the U.S. - I believe it was Don Barry from the Department of the Interior - came and made a presentation about the U.S. legislation, how it works and so on. We asked him a question: if he had to start from scratch, based on his 20 or 23 years of experience, what would he change in his legislation? He went directly to the habitat provision. He said that the problem they had was that at the time of listing, they had to identify the habitat. He said that in addition to having problems identifying those habitats, it became a very political process.
So a listing for them should be scientifically based. So you do the listing; you put the classification in terms of endangerment. But going to the next step, where you identify habitat, should be done when you have the recovery team together, when you have all the scientists and all the stakeholders and you sit down together and ask if you need more information and what kind of information, you define options, and you identify the type of habitat you need to make sure you have a viable population. That's coming from the U.S. experience.
So based on their experience, they believe this should really be done at the time of recovery rather than at the time of listing.
Mr. Adams: On this question of private property owners, it's my understanding that four of the provinces already have legislation that involves citizen participation: New Brunswick - and at least one of you is from New Brunswick - Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. That's a huge chunk of the country. You all have companies functioning in those jurisdictions. Do you know of any cases of citizens coming forward in any way - I was going to say frivolously, but I won't say that - but do you know of cases of citizens using the option already available in those four provinces and pursuing private owners, private companies?
Mrs. Jacob: I don't know of any case, but we did meet with the provinces and we did question them as part of the task force. We did question them on those provisions in their legislation.
We got mixed reviews from the provinces on the effectiveness of that tool. They said that very few people had used it, and they weren't sure if it was worth.... It wasn't really a very active part of their legislation. One of them even said they would repeal that section in the renewal of their act.
Mr. Adams: Which one was that?
Mrs. Jacob: I'm trying to remember which one. I forget. I'm sorry; I would have to go back to my notes.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Gilbert, I think it was, talked about provincial species that cross boundaries. There was some point you were making there. I'd make the same point about this. In four of the jurisdictions there is already strong legislation protecting the provincial species as well as the migratory birds and these other ones that the federal government has...and the birds on federal property. Have you any comments on that?
Mr. Gilbert: Yes. In New Brunswick we have had an endangered species act. It was strengthened this year to include a number of different species as well as some insects and plants.
There is a cooperative approach to this whole process in New Brunswick whereby there is citizen participation in it. It is an advisory type of participation, and a lot of companies in New Brunswick have a citizens group working with their company to identify unique sites, endangered species' habitats, etc. So far it hasn't undergone the test of time, but it seems to be working quite well.
The thing I brought up was that when you get situations where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation, it's very confusing for quite a few of the people who work in the forest.
.1020
Our company itself has a lot of private land, but we buy about 40% of our product from small woodlot owners. These people are going to be very affected by this particular legislation.
Mr. Adams: My point is that they already are affected. I'm just wondering what the difference is in those four provinces for those woodlot owners. There may be a difference in Alberta, I don't know.
Mr. Comba, one of my points here is that the due diligence defence I think is part of the reason you're able to answer and say that no one has come forward. In fact, for most property owners, if they have a rare giraffe in their woodlot, they don't go out and chop its legs off or whatever. Instead, they wonder what should be done.
Mr. David Comba (President and Chief Executive Officer, Pentland Firth Ventures Ltd.): Yes, about half of the expiration expenditures that I make on an annual basis are on private lands where the mineral rights are owned by individuals. But our work permits don't distinguish between crown land and private land, so the work we do is still determined by our work permits.
I'd also like to comment on your assumption that it's habitat, not hunting, that endangers species. My understanding is that the passenger pigeons were largely shot off and the bison on the prairies were hunted nearly to extinction.
Mr. Adams: I think we must have poisoned a few, but I'm glad you picked me up on it.
Mr. Comba: That's correct. So I think it's a combination of things. Perhaps hunting pressure and overfishing are as great a threat to these species.
Mr. Adams: It's a threat, I accept that. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Next is Mr. Taylor, please.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bennett raised a number of interesting issues on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and the people who work for the trade associations. These were points that were not addressed by either the mining or the pulp and paper industries. I'd like to address a couple of questions to the representatives of the industries in relation to what Mr. Bennett raised here.
The first point essentially deals with the whole practice the government is setting out for recovery plans. Mr. Bennett says there's no obligation to consult with anyone, including workers and their communities. He says that such consultations should be wide and obligatory.
I'm just wondering about the thoughts of those in the industry associations with regard to the make-up of these recovery teams. Who should be involved? Would you include workers and representatives of their communities in the make-up of the recovery team? At the same time, would you address the issue about the non-binding nature of recovery plans? Once this team and the minister have achieved the recovery plan, should it be binding? Should it have legal force?
Second, after all this is done and the recovery plans are put in place, it may mean the displacement of a workplace. In the case of farming, perhaps there would be an exclusion of certain income-generating farmland from production. Therefore, communities would be affected.
What is your thought about the idea of redress, as presented by Mr. Bennett, for incomes, workplaces or people affected by a recovery plan that displaces them?
Mr. Martel: I think it's a very important point. As for the notion of recovery, if you want to build foundations for good cooperation, we need to have all the affected parties - if you want, the stakeholders - involved in the recovery plan. I think that was the idea behind the task force report and our presentation as well. When we talk about affected parties or stakeholders, obviously workers are doing the work on ground that is very critical in terms of habitat management. As for the way we do business on the ground, it's very important to have the workers involved in this.
.1025
Actually the act talks about the need for consultations with affected parties, but I think it talks about cooperation with the provinces. So it's not clear what kind or level of consultation will be needed. What needs to be done threatens that aspect.
The other aspect we're talking about here is compensation, which is not addressed in the legislation at all. When either workers or local communities are displaced or their socio-economic livelihoods are being impacted by any action or activity of the recovery plan, we should take into account what we are going to do to compensate those people, local communities, landowners and land users. We're very much supportive of this.
Mr. Gilbert: Can I make one point as well?
In New Brunswick, about 50% of the province is owned by those other than the Crown. I believe in Nova Scotia 85% is in the private interest. In P.E.I., it's even higher.
One of the things that was discussed very much in the technical committees was education and the idea of fostering a cooperative effort with people who own private property, which really wasn't addressed very much in this bill.
Who are better to form these committees than the people who actually work on the land? When it comes to forestry companies, we have people out there in the forest to gather data and be in partnership with conservation and government groups. That's very important. I feel that was missing from this, especially with respect to the private end.
The other part of it is that the time to do this is at the front of this whole process. This means education, such as having people out in the forest finding out where the habitat is and where the endangered species are, instead of at the end part of it, where it comes down to a compensation type of an arrangement.
So front-loading this is certainly a very important part of it. There's not enough enforcement out there to even begin to scratch the surface of this. So getting the public, the owners of the property and the people who work there involved in it at the start is the only way to make this really work.
Mr. Farnsworth: In answer to your question, perhaps a process similar to what we quite often use in our environmental assessment procedures may be helpful in answering Mr. Taylor's question.
For instance, consider some of our mining projects. I'll use the example of one called Musselwhite in northwestern Ontario. When we were doing our environmental planning, which was a step toward getting a work permit, we basically sat around a table at all agency meetings. The people who attended were from all of the provincial ministries that were involved, ourselves and the aboriginal people, with whom we have an agreement on the project. There were four communities and three tribal councils with representatives. The various stakeholders in that area sat around and discussed this planning measure and the things we were going to do.
As part of that process, there was some loss of fish habitat. So again, another topic that was discussed was the matter of compensation for the loss of fish habitat. So perhaps I'm suggesting that something not dissimilar to this could apply in this type of a situation.
Mr. Taylor: Were there any other comments from Gisèle, for example? No?
Can I ask Mr. Bennett as well if he has some further comments to make with regard to redress in particular? I think the trade associations talked a bit about compensation, but I think redress goes beyond the idea of compensation. Perhaps we might get a little better idea of what Mr. Bennett means.
Mr. Bennett: I would really just like to emphasize that what the Canadian Labour Congress is proposing is for these issues to be addressed by putting them at the front end of the process. If this is done, you'll get an amount of legal action and compensation, and legalistic complications in general, that will in fact be minimal.
We're not asking for a legalistic system. We're not demanding that the emphasis be put on redress. All we're saying is that the socio-economic interests of workers in their communities should be addressed as one salient consideration up front in the development of recovery plans. If that's done, you'll not only get justice for workers and communities, you will get the minimization of the legal consequences. But the legal consequences in our view have to be there, otherwise there will be no pressure for governments, or anyone else, to address the needs of workers and communities.
.1030
The Chairman: Mrs. Payne, please.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman has already said that if we had done our work we probably wouldn't need this legislation and we wouldn't be here today discussing this.
Coming from the area I do, being able to take advantage of any minerals, mining and that sort of thing is very important to the economic base of my province.
Some discussion has already taken place on this, but I would like a general comment, I suppose, on this as to what we should have done in the past or what we can do in the future to prevent us having to probably impose further legislation or even deeper fines and punishment if we in fact don't do what we're supposed to be doing at this time. What other groups should we be encouraging to come on board with us in terms of the conservation and protection of endangered species?
Mr. Bennett: The question that has been posed to us is a very difficult one. I don't think anyone pretends they have a convincing answer, particularly as the answer is not likely to be all that helpful. We're dealing with past mistakes and past endeavours.
There is one observation, however, that I would like to make. In all of the controversies and divisiveness that Canada has been consumed with and the genuine efforts that have been made to resolve the nature of Canada in the past decades, the one issue that was never addressed was the question of constitutional authority over the environment.
We are now in a state such that our Constitution, which is a century and a half old, doesn't mention the environment. You have to construct environmental authority from various suggestions that were made close to two centuries ago.
I'm suggesting that this lack of attention to a central issue of concern to Canadians has in fact resulted in an unsatisfactory environmental regime and a wholly destructive controversy about the relationship between the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis those of the provinces and the territories. If there's one mistake, I think it's a very deep-seated, wide and general one, which is that this doesn't specifically concern endangered species.
Mr. Martel: I won't get into a constitutional debate at this point in time.
I just wanted to mention that when we talk about this legislation, the discussion is very much like nothing happened before.
In actual fact, COSEWIC, with a very limited budget and with work from the provinces, the feds and the territories, has done a lot of work. As a matter of fact, some species have been delisted, even as recently as the spring.
This piece of legislation is a part of the puzzle. We're trying to raise the profile of endangered species so that adequate resources will be dedicated to them.
I think we're also trying to promote this aspect of building a good foundation for good cooperation among all governments at all levels and among all stakeholders. I think it is crucial to have the legislation help raise the profile of that issue and focus on the real problem. Legislation is one component of an overall approach, but it's an important one. We recognize that.
Mr. Andrews: I would like to make an additional comment to what has been said already. I think what we're dealing with here, with the progress of time, is increasing awareness.
.1035
I think what we're dealing with here, in the progress of time, is increasing awareness. A few decades ago we had a very low environmental awareness, and the whole of society was making all kinds of mistakes. In time, we became aware of those things. Now we're doing things differently. The same thing applies to endangered species, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll just give you an example of things that are happening now that weren't happening a few decades ago.
We have one mining operation that occurs in Strathcona Park on Vancouver Island, which is Westmin's Myra Falls site. They work with park authorities to do a number of things with respect to wildlife species. For instance, they help them enforce no hunting and no fishing. They have also identified several species that have now been listed in British Columbia, and they help monitor those species. They also help to spread the word to visitors on how to conduct themselves in the park with respect to conservation and wildlife.
That's the sort of thing that can happen with increasing awareness. On the voluntary side of industry contributions, that's what we want to do now in going forward with this.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We'll now have a brief round of one question each on the part of two members who would like to ask a question. Then we will have a brief intermission, resuming at 11 a.m. with the balance of the witnesses present here this morning.
Mr. Asselin, followed by Mr. Knutson.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Now that we've completed the procedural debate, I will immediately ask one question, and once the debate has taken place in the House, we will be in a position to debate the question that I have raised.
Earlier, mention was made of overlap, duplication and respect for provincial jurisdiction. When the bill is debated in the House, would you support the idea of the Bloc québécois concerning itself with eliminating duplication and overlap, so that the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act can be truly efficient and effective?
I would like to make a suggestion. Would you support the idea of the federal government's informing the provinces of its intention to protect endangered species in Canada and asking them to introduce legislation within a year, so that the provinces would have full authority, in keeping with a spirit of partnership, to establish legislation, to administer that legislation, to see to the enforcement of measures intended to protect endangered species and to impose sanctions?
This would thus be an area the provinces would take responsibility for, in cooperation with their partners and the affected territories, because this also affects the territories. We all know that each of the provinces has territories that are of concern to aboriginal peoples, various industries or agriculture. Would it be preferable, as part of the overall federal policy thrust in this area, for administration, enforcement, sanctions and even the actual drafting of legislation to be the exclusive responsibility of the provinces?
Mrs. Jacob: Our position is that federal legislation should apply in federal areas of responsibility.
Mr. Asselin: In federal areas of responsibility. But what exactly would that mean? Let's take Quebec, for example. Would the federal government legislate, and if it did, who would be responsible for enforcement? There have to be wildlife conservation officers. We already have them in Quebec. It is well known that Quebec has already taken steps to protect deer on Anticosti Island and in Gaspé Park.
If it is determined at some point, based on information from wildlife officers or registration data from the moose hunting season, that the moose population is decreasing, the Government of Quebec could prohibit the hunting of female moose for a two- or three-year period, which would allow us to save the animal from extinction. Exactly the same thing could be done for...
Mrs. Jacob: Hence the importance of the federal-provincial agreement and of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council which is referred to in the bill.
Mr. Asselin: What would happen if a province - any province - was opposed? I do not presume to know whether Quebec would agree or disagree. Perhaps it would agree to certain terms and conditions or to a protocol. In any case, if a province was opposed, the legislation would become nothing more than wishful thinking.
.1040
The Chairman: That was the reason for the Charlottetown Accord. This issue was discussed and potential solutions were found when that accord was developed.
Mr. Asselin: Yes, but the Charlottetown Accord was rejected, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: No, I'm referring to the Charlottetown Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. There are two Charlottetown Accords.
Mr. Martel: I believe the idea of partnership and cooperation between different levels of government is an essential condition for a successful endangered species conservation program. That also means respecting provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction and eliminating duplication. We must try to work together and avoid wasting both resources and energy on trying to determine who is responsible for what. We must try to clarify all of that, and we must do so in the context of this legislation.
[English]
The Chairman: This is a very important question. Mr. Asselin is certainly helping us in moving in a certain direction with our thinking.
There is no doubt that there is a federal jurisdiction. There is no doubt that there is a provincial jurisdiction. The two, instead of overlapping, can complement each other. Maybe in the hearings we'll find ways of defining this area of complementarity.
Definitely, in Charlottetown this matter was thrashed out quite at length, and an agreement in principle was the result. Keep in mind, though, that there are certain provinces that for budgetary reasons prefer to defer to the federal government for certain responsibilities for their own convenience.
So we have different patterns according to different regions, but we will certainly be paying attention to this aspect. Too often, ``overlapping'' is used as a term when actually the term ``complementarity'' ought to be used.
This is a perfect occasion for this legislation to have provincial mirror legislation whereby the provinces will do what is within their competence and complement what the federal jurisdiction is attempting to do on its own. But there are certain situations in which the birds cannot be prevented from landing this morning on a federal stone, and then this afternoon on a provincial stone. Tomorrow morning they'll be on a stone in Mexico.
It requires a lot of ingenuity on the part of human beings. Since we managed to land on the moon, we will probably also be able to manage this item.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: My question is for Mrs. Jacob. You've indicated concerns with clause 33, which concerns international cross-boundary species. It's our understanding that the task force recommended that the federal government would ensure the protection of these species. I presume there was consensus on that point. If the current approach is not used, could you comment on what you feel could be used in its place?
Mrs. Jacob: I believe the federal government has legitimate authority when it comes to international business. It can implement agreements on behalf of Canada to deal with international matters. We would prefer to see that rather than the use of the Criminal Code, which could also apply to interprovincial species.
There's also the fact that the federal government's authority in international matters would allow it to cover other species than just animals. The current provisions only apply to animal species, not cross-boundary plants. The reason I'm saying this is that although plants don't cross borders back and forth, the act defines ``cross-boundary'' as including the range in which a species occurs.
So we feel that there are other mechanisms that would be more efficient to use than the current suggestions of the cruelty to animal provisions of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Knutson: Do you think the act, as it's written, reflects the consensus on this issue from the task force?
Mrs. Jacob: Not with the use of the Criminal Code provisions that are proposed.
Jean-Pierre, do you agree with that?
.1045
Mr. Martel: As I said earlier in one of my answers, we're not here to talk about the Constitution and how to share responsibilities.
In the task force there were people who said it should have the full extent of federal authority. We said that it was up to your wisdom to decide what it was, but make sure there's complementarity is what we said.
The aspect of the cross-boundary range of distribution was not discussed at all. It actually came as a surprise to me.
Mr. Knutson: Was that with regard to plants or grizzly bears?
Mr. Martel: Both, actually. We didn't talk about cross-boundary range habitat or the use of criminal law as a way to have responsibility. This was not discussed at all.
Mrs. Jacob: With cross-boundary species, we talked about migration patterns, not the range of the habitat of that species. That's why we were surprised by the definition of ``cross-boundary'' and the use of the Criminal Code to address it.
Mr. Knutson: One of the environmental groups used as an example a bear that moves into Alberta from a state to the south, where it's protected. In Alberta it can be shot. It goes into Banff National Park, where it's protected. Then it goes into British Columbia, where it can be shot. From the environmental group's point of view it was entirely within the federal government's responsibility to protect that species of bear. Do you have any difficulty with that? Could you share that with me?
Mr. Bonar: Again, if the species has been listed, we have no difficulty with prohibitions against shooting it anywhere, which would resolve that difficulty.
But the issues of habitat are very much a matter of discussion between the province and the federal government. If that bear is on provincial land at the time, then the province, I expect, would like to have some authority over the decisions on habitat with respect to where that bear is at the time.
I guess I'd like to see the spirit of the Charlottetown accord used rather than the overbearing provisions of the Criminal Code in addressing these issues. The provinces and the federal government have come to a framework of an agreement. Let's use that and the provisions the federal government has available to it with respect to its international responsibilities, rather than what's proposed with the Criminal Code.
Mr. Taylor: I just want to come back briefly to the position Mr. Asselin raised at the beginning of the meeting. I didn't want to raise a point of order or a question with the chair at the time because it would have taken time away from the witnesses. But now that this portion of the meeting is over, I just want to clarify a matter.
Members know that as an associate member of this committee I'm not a voting member of the committee, nor am I a part of the steering committee, which is the subcommittee on agenda planning. I'm well aware that the committee is the master of its own destiny. We can do anything we want with the agreement of the committee. However, I'm just wondering whether the decision to pre-study the subject matter of Bill C-65 was a decision of the committee or of the chair.
The Chairman: Oh, heavens, you are attributing to the chair powers the chair doesn't have.
Three weeks ago this entire committee approved a plan for hearings. This entire committee approved the travelling plan. This entire committee approved the notion that we should operate under Standing Order 108(2). So this was a collective decision of the entire committee.
Mr. Taylor: I assume, therefore, that representatives of the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party were present at the time that decision was made.
The Chairman: Yes, they were.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.