[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 21, 1996
.1104 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
We welcome the Sierra Club, the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition, and the Canadian Coalition for Biodiversity.
Please introduce your group and begin.
Ms Catherine Austen (Campaign Coordinator, Canadian Endangered Species Coalition): My name is Catherine Austen. I'm the campaign coordinator for the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. With me are Elizabeth May, executive director of Sierra Club of Canada, and Cendrine Huemer, coordinator of the Canadian Coalition for Biodiversity.
Most of you are familiar with the Endangered Species Coalition, but for the record, the coalition was formed over two years ago by six of Canada's most influential environmental groups: the Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Sierra Club of Canada, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature, and World Wildlife Fund Canada. All of these six member groups and many of our other supporting groups will be presenting directly before the committee.
.1105
To begin, we're pleased to see the introduction of a bill for federal endangered species protection. We respect the work of the department and certainly of the minister and his staff in bringing the issue to the point where we have a bill to respond to. However, the coalition has some key concerns with the bill, largely in the way of provisions that are too discretionary to ensure that the act can be effective. It is my hope that these concerns can be addressed by this standing committee.
I'll start out with the good provisions of Bill C-65. The clauses on the designation of species by COSEWIC are generally very good, in particular the contents of the status report, including the identification of critical habitat and the threats to the species. These are very good. It allows for a profile of each species and what its survival requires to be made by an unbiased committee of experts at the beginning, at the listing stage. These reports will provide a firm foundation for recovery planning at later stages.
The automatic prohibitions against direct harm to individuals and their homes, with strong fines for violations, are generally good, though I will have a couple of points to make about those.
The requirement for prompt recovery plans and management plans for vulnerable species is also very good. We're very pleased to see those.
The purpose of the bill is exemplary, to prevent extinction and provide for the recovery of extirpated, endangered and threatened species. Unfortunately, the coalition finds that many provisions of the bill leave too much to chance in terms of achieving these purposes. I'll briefly run through these provisions that have discretionary weaknesses.
First is the limited application of the bill. I actually am running a fever today, but I brought in my aspirin to make a point about the uses of wild species. Aspirin is derived from the white willow, a wild species. More than 50% of medicines prescribed in North America are derived from wild species, mostly plants. The potential for further discoveries is huge. Only 5% of plant species have been investigated for their medicinal values.
I don't think anyone on the committee would question the fact that wild species are important, and conserving biodiversity is essential. That gimmick was simply to make the point that it is essential, and that the bill's application is too limited. Less than 25% of Canada's plants at risk would be covered at all under this bill. Plants aren't eligible for the transborder provisions. Plants don't move around, so they don't have as great a chance of ever occurring on federal lands.
So the coalition is a bit disappointed with the limited scope of the bill. It's our position that the bill should apply to aquatic species and their habitats, as stated in the bill; to Migratory Birds Convention Act birds and their habitats, which is almost as stated in the bill; to species and their habitats on federal lands, as in the bill; but also, in a province that lacks equivalent legislation, to species that cross international or interprovincial boundaries and the habitats of those species.
The coalition respects the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada, but only four provinces currently have endangered species legislation, and only six have signed the national accord. It could take ten years for a province to enact complementary legislation, and the species that are endangered are endangered with extinction. We don't have time to wait. It's our position that where a province lacks equivalent legislation, the federal government should regulate over species that cross any political border.
The Canadian Bar Association has agreed that the federal government has jurisdiction over all cross-border species. We have a letter to that effect if you're interested in receiving a copy.
As well, the task force recommended the allowance for regulatory measures and requirements to initiate recovery plans on the part of the federal government for species that cross the international border. I'm not sure why that provision came as a surprise to people who participated on the task force.
The task force report states that the act should require the minister to initiate, coordinate and participate in international species recovery and management plans. With respect to species that cross Canada's borders, the minister could establish necessary regulatory measures to ensure that actions taken in Canada do not adversely affect a Canadian threatened or endangered species shared with another country. So that is a recommendation on the part of the task force to allow regulatory measures on the part of the federal government within this bill.
.1110
To effectively achieve the purposes of the bill with respect to migratory birds, a simple change is required in the wording of paragraph 3(1)(b). It now states that the bill applies to species of migratory birds and their habitats that are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. If we change this slightly to read ``species of migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and their habitat'', then we can ensure that their habitats will be protected under this bill.
The question of how much habitat protection is allowed under the Migratory Birds Convention Act itself is open. It applies to nests and allows for some provisions for significant areas migratory birds use. But the federal government has clear constitutional authority to regulate over migratory birds and the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do what's necessary to ensure that this can be done. So we need that changed to the application to migratory birds.
To apply the bill to trans-boundary species, the required changes are more complex. In the brief there are two options provided. One is to extend the direct application in clause 3 to include species that migrate across or have a range extending across international or interprovincial boundaries, and then to limit the application of the provision for the cross-boundary species so that it does not apply in the case of provinces where existing legislation is in place to protect those species.
A second option is to modify clause 33, which deals with prohibitions against trans-boundary species. Modification would require that it apply not just to animal species, but plant species as well. Currently it just applies to animal species. It would require that provision to be extended to interprovincial as well as international borders and the placing of some sort of recovery trigger there. Right now, there's no need or even allowance for the federal government to start recovery plans for these species.
It's also important to note here that existing provincial legislation doesn't have a lot of recovery measures. The voluntary recovery body, RENEW, has been doing recovery for species, and the provincial acts don't require recovery, so it's most important that the federal government have a role not only in the protection of these species that cross borders but in their recovery.
Whether the application of the bill is or is not amended to include all trans-boundary species, a further change is required to clause 3. That is, right now limitation of the bill in the provinces is not merely limitation of the prohibitions and regulations that may be produced under recovery plans and emergency orders, but it's also limited application of clause 30, which is the lifting of species at risk.
I don't really understand why clause 30 is limited in its application. It seems to suggest that the listing will only include fish, migratory birds under the MBCA, and species on federal land, and that species at risk nationally in Canada but that don't occur on federal lands and aren't aquatic or migratory bird species won't even get put on the national list of wildlife species at risk.
I strongly suggest taking that out. If you want to limit the prohibitions and regulations, that's one thing, but you should not limit putting these species on the list. One of the main reasons is because that list will be an educational tool, and voluntary efforts that local conservation groups, girl guides, individual landowners, anyone, might make to protect these species won't happen if the species aren't even on the list. So all nationally endangered species in Canada should be listed.
Basically, the scope of the bill has to be expanded to effectively protect Canada's nationally endangered wildlife. At present, less than a quarter of Canada's plant species at risk occur on federal lands, and less than half of Canada's animal species at risk have significant populations on federal lands through their life cycle. So the bill cannot effectively achieve its purposes of protecting and recovering species at risk unless the scope is expanded.
Even where the bill applies there are significant weaknesses. I'll briefly run through the process set out in the bill from designation through recovery.
First, a species is designated by COSEWIC. The relevant provisions are generally good, although we would like a few more details on COSEWIC's decision-making process in terms of whether they decide by majority or consensus, etc.
.1115
After designation comes listing. The point was made yesterday, and will be repeated over and over, that the level of political discretion in the listing process is not acceptable. The identification of species at risk is a matter of conservation biology, which should be left to the experts on COSEWIC. It's an identification of the problem. Identifying solutions should certainly involve political considerations and other stakeholders, but identification of the problem itself should be left to the expertise of those appointed to COSEWIC.
Therefore, subclause 30(1) should be amended to read that the minister shall make regulations establishing and amending the list of wildlife species at risk, including all of COSEWIC's designations and classifications of wildlife species. If this is politically impossible for reasons of political accountability, then the clause should be amended at least to the effect that the regulations, the list, should include all of COSEWIC's designations and classifications. Further, the clause should be amended to the effect that where a COSEWIC designation or classification is not included by the minister on the list of wildlife species at risk, the minister must provide a reasonable justification for the discrepancy and the decision must be open to public review.
There is a concern on the part of most parties that science will not be heeded well enough in the list. There should be an option for justifying any discrepancies and for not heeding the advice of COSEWIC, and this should be open to the public. I would note here that emergency orders should follow the same thing. Where COSEWIC makes an emergency designation or reclassification, if the minister does not issue an emergency order based on that, there should be a full justification with public review for that decision.
Without these amendments the bill could conceivably have a list of wildlife species at risk that doesn't list a single species in Canada. I don't think this is likely to happen. I don't think anyone believes it's likely to happen, but it shouldn't be possible.
The prohibitions are generally good, but there a few concerns. They should also apply to extirpated as well as endangered and threatened species. Recovery efforts take place before a species is reclassified. For example, there have been 790 swift fox released in Canada although the species is still classed as extirpated. To ensure that recovery efforts aren't in vain, the prohibitions should be extended to extirpated species as well. I don't see why there would be arguments against that.
Also, disturbance of residences should be prohibited in addition to damage or destruction. Many species are intolerant of disturbance and will abandon their young if there's human disturbance. It's possible to cut off the branch of a tree where there's a nest and move it around without damaging or destroying the nest, but it's the disturbance that would cause harmful if not fatal results for the species using the nest.
On prohibitions to residence, ``residence'' needs redefining to account for the biological diversity of species. Not all species build or use structures in which to deliver and raise their young. Many species do return to the same site to breed. They have specific breeding sites but no physical structures to mark them. Calving grounds and spawning grounds are examples of this. It does not appear that the intent of the bill is to automatically protect all of those areas in which species actually dwell or reside. That would include feeding areas, staging areas, migration routes and such, but it does seem to be within the intent of the bill to automatically protect those specific sites that individuals use to deliver and raise their young, and that's the use of dens and nests. By expanding the definition of residence to read ``a specific place, such as a den, nest, breeding site or other similar area habitually occupied'', we can provide more equal protection to all species at risk. It's a question of accounting for biodiversity, different behaviour patterns.
The question could arise of whether such an extension could be implemented, since a nest looks like a nest whether there's a bird in it or not, whereas a place in the sand where the bird lays its eggs without building any physical structure doesn't look like a nest. But I disagree that it would require more public education than enforcing the prohibitions on residence as now defined in the bill, because I don't think the average Canadian could identify the nest of an endangered species on their own. I don't know what the nest of a prothonotary warbler looks like. I would need some help with that, and I don't think it would require any more help to point out where a species breeds that doesn't build a nest. I think the definition of residence should be expanded.
.1120
Also, I would note in regard to the prohibitions that the blanket exemptions to the prohibitions under clause 36 are too broad. They don't require any public registry, and there's no need to consider alternatives or mitigating measures. These are exemptions for activities in accordance with national security, safety and health. These blanket exemptions should be only for emergencies, and non-emergency situations should go through the regular permitting process allowed for in clause 46. There's no reason to have non-emergencies given a blanket exemption.
With these few amendments the prohibitions protecting individuals and their residences will be adequate. Unfortunately, these are insufficient to effectively protect species. As many of you know, what's required is habitat protection. The bill requires some sort of third prohibition against damaging or destroying the critical habitat of extirpated, endangered or threatened species, and such a prohibition could come into effect either at the listing stage or at the recovery stage.
This brings me to the next stage, recovery plans. The timing of recovery plans and management plans is very good in Bill C-65. In general, the content of the plans is acceptable. The major weakness is that the implementation of recovery plans is never required. There are implementation reports required, the plans themselves are required, but no action is ever required to follow these recovery plans.
Clause 42, which allows the minister to make regulations following recovery plans, should require the minister to make regulations following recovery plans. It's a critical amendment, because as the bill reads now this is the only section where habitat protection can be afforded other than in emergency situations. It's at the recovery stage that habitat protection is allowed, and habitat protection is imperative to the survival and recovery of species at risk. That is, it's imperative to achieve the purposes of the bill.
You've heard a lot about habitat protection and you'll hear more from other coalition member groups. I'm just going to be brief.
Habitat protection is required for several reasons. First, it's necessary in order to save the list of species itself and meet the purposes of the bill. Eighty percent of Canadian species at risk are at risk because of threats to their habitat, habitat loss. Pollution and overharvesting are other reasons, but habitat loss is the most significant limiting factor on species at risk. So in order to achieve the purposes of the act, habitat protection has to come in here.
Second, habitat protection is needed to maintain a healthy habitat that may serve to prevent other species from becoming endangered. If you look at the list of species at risk, there are hot spots. The prairies have several species at risk in a concentrated area. Carolinian Canada, in Ontario, has several species are at risk. Generally, where habitat loss is occurring several species that require this habitat are going to suffer from it. So where you protect the habitat of one species, you're allowing for ecosystem help to support other species at risk.
Of special note here is that COSEWIC does not classify all taxonomic classifications of species. The seemingly insignificant species such as worms and bees, the little things we generally tend to think of as insignificant but that actually do most of the work on the planet in terms of keeping other species and ourselves alive, aren't eligible for consideration by COSEWIC. Therefore, the only way to ensure their protection is to extend the protective net for the keystone species that are listed to include the habitat, and then we can protect the whole ecosystem, these little guys that don't get put on the list.
A third reason for requiring implementation of the recovery plans is to guarantee some sort of return on taxpayers' money. As is, Bill C-65 could result largely in the production of reports without any action at all other than the prohibitions. So if the bill is to have an effect on the ground, recovery plans have to be implemented.
.1125
I would note that if recovery plans have to be implemented, or even if that is left to political discretion, the provisions for consultation under clause 39, which is a consultation with affected parties, aboriginal peoples under whose land claims the species occurs, or private landowners, will probably have to be strengthened to ensure more effective participation by these participants in the recovery plan.
As written, a recovery plan could be written up and then you could go talk to these people and tell them about it. That would be consultation with affected landowners or affected first nations. That's not going to translate well on the ground. These people have to participate in the recovery planning process from the start, particularly if implementation of recovery plans is required.
A 1995 Angus Reid poll concluded not only that 94% of Canadians support federal endangered species legislation, but also that 89% of rural Canadians would be willing to leave at least a percentage of their land in a natural condition in order to ensure the protection of an endangered plant or animal that lived there. This was irrespective of financial compensation. To maintain this high percentage of participation, recovery planning has to include those individuals who are affected - first nations and private landowners on whose land the species occurs - from the start.
This was one of the broad recommendations of participants in the June 1996 consultations on federal legislation, and it was agreed to by landowners and conservation groups alike. It's important for on-the-ground recovery.
In repetition of a point made yesterday by Stewart Elgie, of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the provisions for advance review in this bill are insufficient. The bill says essentially that projects that already require environmental assessment under CEAA will have environmental assessment and that these assessments will include possible effects on endangered and threatened species. This is insufficient. In some form the bill and CEAA have to be amended to provide that all projects likely to affect a listed species or its critical habitat must undergo environmental assessment and be subject to the measures for lessening and monitoring adverse effects that are stated in clause 49 of Bill C-65. This is important for a preventive approach.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I would ask the other two witnesses to stay within the time allocation.
Ms Cendrine Huemer (Coordinator, Canadian Coalition for Biodiversity): I'm the coordinator for the Canadian Coalition for Biodiversity, which is composed of nine Canadian non-governmental organizations: the Association for Biodiversity Conservation; the Canadian Biodiversity Institute; the Canadian Nature Federation; the Falls Brook Centre, in New Brunswick; Le Rêve, in Quebec; Ocean Voice International; Rare Breeds Canada; the Sierra Club of Canada; and the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
The representation of all these groups reflects the fact that biodiversity really covers everything and that endangered species are only one sign that we are losing our biodiversity.
You will have heard quite a few presentations by now, and I really would rather emphasize two points. I'll be brief. One is on species scope and the second is on the status of COSEWIC. I do want to say that we're pleased that the legislation has finally been tabled. It is a significant step forward in the protection of species in Canada.
The Convention on Biological Diversity, which Canada proudly signed in 1992, spelled out the need to protect endangered and threatened species in article 8(k), which says:
- Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: Develop or maintain
necessary legislation and or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species
and populations.
.1130
The Canadian Bar Association concluded in its study that the federal government does have the authority to protect all species.
Let me give you some numbers I pulled from Canada's Biodiversity, which was published in 1995. It's the ``Canada Country Study on Biodiversity''.
Not including single-celled organisms, there are about 53,000 recorded species in Canada, plus almost as many not recorded yet. COSEWIC covers only vertebrates - that is, mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. It covers higher vascular plants and only recently has been expanded to cover molluscs and butterflies and moths.
That totals about 8,000 species, or 15% of all the species in Canada. COSEWIC has only analysed so far a portion of those and listed only 276, and of those the legislation only covers about half.
Another concern is really a reflection of one of our members, Rare Breeds Canada, which is concerned with the loss of rare domestic breeds. They're concerned that this bill does not apply to those endangered breeds of domestic animals.
My second point concerns the status of COSEWIC. As per clause 13, COSEWIC will only be an advisory body to the minister, with the minister having final say as to whether a species gets listed. As it stands, the legislation turns scientific decisions into political ones. The decision of listing a species is left to the minister, and no parameters are indicated for when and how the government will decide whether or not to follow the recommendations.
For the list to reflect scientific accuracy, COSEWIC must have final say on what species get listed, down-listed and hopefully de-listed.
Let me give you an example of how politics gets in the way of endangered species protection. I can use an example from the U.S. The Fish and Wildlife Service was sued in the early 1990s, I believe, for refusing to list the northern spotted owl as endangered. The court finally found that decision to be contrary to law, and the Fish and Wildlife Service finally did list the owl. But it then deferred designating critical habitat for protection for the reason that it was not determinable.
In reality, that habitat is in prime old-growth logging areas, and many people in that area depend on its commercial value. So here we have political need affecting biological decisions.
In the end, though, the court did find that the Fish and Wildlife Service had not fulfilled its obligations under the act and had to designate the critical habitat to protect the owl.
I use this example simply to show how issues can get very long and very costly. They can split entire communities and pit the economy against the environment, when we all know one depends on the other.
As for specific recommendations, in clause 3 the legislation must include all species, particularly those that cross international borders. The wording of the legislation must be very clear to prevent lengthy and costly debate, as in the owl issue in the States. We don't want every decision made under the act to end up in court. Endangered species don't have time to wait. It takes years to go through that kind of battle.
The clearest path is to ensure that our legislation allows for scientific decisions to be made by science and political decisions to be made by politicians. This current legislation makes species protection a political one. It must be remedied.
For example, the language must be changed from the permissive ``may'' to the obligatory ``shall'' in order to eliminate loopholes. In clause 33, for example, the key words right now say ``The Minister may make regulations prohibiting any person from''. It should say something like ``The Minister shall make regulations'' or ``No person shall kill'', etc.
Once COSEWIC makes the decision to list a species, there should be no loopholes.
[Translation]
Canada has already taken the lead and other countries are expecting us to set a good example when it comes to protecting endangered species.
.1135
Setting a good example implies adopting legislation that is effective enough to protect all endangered species, all habitats and ultimately, human beings.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam.
[English]
Ms Elizabeth May (Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
My name is Elizabeth May. I'm the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
I have a background in environmental law and have the advantage, which is sometimes a curse, of remembering what I learned in constitutional law about federal powers, concepts of paramountcy and where the federal government has obligations under the Constitution to act. These days I think it's better to be brain-dead on these matters, because when you remember what the law is supposed to be, it's something of a torment when you read something like what we have before us today.
I first appeared before this committee in the previous government. Some of you who are lifers on this committee - I hope Mr. Caccia will remain a lifer on this committee, and I think Mr. Taylor was here at the time - might remember.
Stewart Elgie from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and I from the Sierra Club of Canada appeared in order to make the point that the government could not ratify the Biodiversity Convention without the proper legal instruments to implement it. We argued then, four years ago, that we needed endangered species legislation, and here we are today. We finally have a draft bill, and we are pleased to see something come forward.
A lot of my colleagues have made some of the points that my written brief covers.
The Chairman: I'd interject that if the Government of Canada had not ratified it, we wouldn't even have the legislation today.
Ms May: That's true. Oh, I'm nothing but proud that Canada was the first industrialized country to sign the convention and the first industrialized country to ratify the legislation. Thank you for taking me to task, Mr. Chair, because I wouldn't want to create the impression that I don't think we should have ratified it until we got legislation in place. We now are seeing legislation come forward.
I'll go to my first point, which relates to this. I have three major points and one other. Some of them have been dealt with by other witnesses, so I'll attempt to keep my remarks to those points that are somewhat novel, if such a thing is possible before this committee.
The first point I wish to make is on the scope of the legislation, the second relates to political discretion issues, the third is around habitat concerns and the last is on citizen action.
[Translation]
We find the scope of the legislation, namely the fact that it fails to protect all endangered species in Canada, most unacceptable. There are two reasons why the scope of the legislation poses a problem: the first reason is conceptual, the second is political.
[English]
These are things that are known but that don't get discussed very often in the committee.
The first I think is a novel point. This legislation has been unnecessarily hampered by an initial mischaracterization. From the very beginning, since the point when the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Sheila Copps, made the commitment to bring forward this legislation within the system, it was perceived as a wildlife issue.
The essence and the origins of the need for endangered species legislation come from a global biodiversity crisis, a biological meltdown, a rate of extinction unknown since the time of the dinosaurs. We are losing species around the world at 1,000 times what would be considered evolutionary norms. As the chairman pointed out earlier this morning, the reason for this mass extinction is human behaviour, pure and simple.
We're dealing with a biodiversity crisis. We're not dealing with a political game about federal-provincial wildlife management.
I put it to you that Canada runs the risk of being severely embarrassed in the international arena when we stand up and explain that if a species.... Say ten years from now, a species not yet listed or listed but now at the point of extinction becomes a rallying cry for German environmental groups, who say ``But certainly you're not going to let the woodland caribou go extinct. Certainly you must do something for the marbled murrelet.'' The Canadian Minister of the Environment will have to explain, in an international conference, ``Well, of course we'd like to, but that's a provincial species. The Government of Canada can't do anything about it.'' It may be that the politics of the moment mean we can do nothing about this, but I think it's a tragedy.
.1140
That brings me to the second point of the bizarre circumstance in which we find ourselves. Having mischaracterized it as a wildlife issue, we then imported the notions of jurisdiction over wildlife to this file. Yes, provinces do make decisions about the quotas for deer hunting every year. That doesn't mean they're the appropriate place to protect species at the point they become at risk of extinction.
This is an area of national concern. If the political will were there and if the political climate were different, on a purely constitutional basis there is no question that the Government of Canada has all the jurisdiction it needs to protect any species at risk of extinction, wherever it is in this country.
But the politics are different. Recognizing that, and with all respect to the federal-provincial tensions that right now create a situation in which
[Translation]
our country is threatened to the same extent as certain species. I think it is possible to correct clause 3 by making minimal changes.
If the territories must comply with federal legislation unless they can prove that their territorial laws contain equivalent provisions, why shouldn't it be the same thing for the provinces? The federal legislation is so weak because of the political tensions with Quebec, tensions with which I am quite familiar. Although the Quebec government has already passed a law to protect endangered species, its quest for independence must not stand in the way of Alberta adopting its own laws.
Given the way in which Bill C-65 is currently drafted, Alberta, Newfoundland or British Columbia have no motivation whatsoever for passing their own equivalent legislation. A public outcry is the only thing that could force their hand.
In the meantime, threatened species such as the Newfoundland marten which numbers around 300 could become extinct.
You, the members of the Bloc québécois and the members of this committee, are in a position to do more for endangered species than any other elected official. No one at the federal level wants to fight with Quebec over such a seemingly unimportant issue.
[English]
I am sad to say this, but this is my sense of the politics. I have to ask you at a very personal level.... Our concern at the Sierra Club is not around politics. As citizens we have our views. Our concern is for species at risk of extinction and to rise above the politics.
There was an attempt made in Charlottetown with the accord to do that and to create a spirit that rose above politics. All governments there, including the minister for Quebec - whom I have a lot of respect for because I knew him through the Great Whale days, Monsieur Cliche - signed that accord. But that accord doesn't have timelines or deadlines. It is entirely a matter of good wishes.
Unless this legislation creates an incentive, we run the risk that nothing will happen in those many provinces that currently don't have a law. We've already heard ministers from some provinces interpret their commitments under the Charlottetown accord as being so vague and malleable that they could perhaps live up to them without doing anything else in their provincial legislative scheme. That's been said publicly by at least one minister in a provincial context.
So we're very concerned that the federal government, the federal Parliament, in passing this law does not give up the chance to create leverage - to say that yes, it will be a patchwork; yes, the provinces will do the things within their jurisdiction, but only once they demonstrate they have equivalent provincial law.
I've suggested the drafting that will work on this for section 3. The other additions deal with both interprovincial and international species.
I made a point in my brief in response to a question that Mr. Caccia asked of a previous witness on behalf of the federal government - whether this protection of internationally ranging species would be different, worse or better protection. I felt the answer was inadequate. I won't go through all the details; I spell them out in the brief. Clearly, the protection of species that cross international boundaries will be far weaker than anything, given the species that are considered federal in section 3.
.1145
Furthermore, the decision to abandon the federal role on species that cross, or range between, interprovincial boundaries is an unbelievable abdication of federal responsibility from case law forever. The federal government is the only level of government that can sort out something that requires provincial cooperation. I think it's a dangerous precedent for the federal government, in its own legislation, to abandon those species that cross provincial boundaries.
Our second level of concern is political discretion. My colleagues and other witnesses have mentioned the listing process. The exemption process is open as well. It's ripe for abuse. The exemptions in clauses 36 and 46 require further consultations and review.
As well, there are a number of clauses we refer to as ``extinction options'', opportunities for ministers, again, in their own discretion and in their own judgment, to decide that it's either not possible or feasible - and it's not even clear that's not just an economic decision - to bring a species into recovery.
All of these kinds of decisions require reference to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the opportunity for a thorough review with public involvement.
On habitat protection, many of my colleagues have made the points. I don't agree with my friend Gisèle Jacob, who spoke earlier today, that the definition of ``residence'' is vague. To us, it's overly restrictive, overly narrow and overly tight. It is entirely clear what a residence is. It won't include many things of critical need if we're going to bring a species back, even to the concept of where they actually live as individuals, much less the concern for critical habitat. So we have made some recommendations that the term ``critical habitat'' be used in the prohibition clause and not merely the term ``residence''.
Finally, the one thing about this bill that gives us some chance to believe it could actually protect species on the brink of extinction, if all else fails in the political context, is the citizen action provisions. Unfortunately, they are quite weak in that they have to await a decision by a minister. That decision is then the source of the complaint - that it was either unreasonably rejected or described as frivolous.
There are time limits throughout the legislation, so in an emergency situation a citizen couldn't get to court. We've suggested an additional subclause under clause 60. It would allow that if the alleged offence that's subject of the investigation creates an imminent threat to an endangered species or its critical habitat, a citizen could seek assistance in the courts.
To speak to some of the comments that came up earlier today from those witnesses who felt that clause 60 went too far, it's quite often the case that when anything is proposed in legislation that involves citizen access, the argument used is that it somehow will open the floodgates and the system will be clogged with complaints.
I remember when CEPA was going through this committee 10 years ago. In terms of the very modest provisions in that bill for petition rights, that citizens could file petitions to investigate a complaint, people said it would clog the system. In the last 10 years I think there were two petitions for CEPA. It didn't open the floodgates. It created some access. Even the petition provision in CEPA doesn't require going to court.
Decisions to go to court...for the very reasons Madame Jacob mentioned. They're expensive and they're threatening. Citizens' groups would rather do almost anything than go to court. We're not that kind of society. One of the reasons is that our court system invokes rules of costs against people who lose cases.
So it's a different climate from the U.S., in many ways. When you have a species that's endangered, its habitat not protected by anything and a massive project of some kind about to take it away, if there's no access for anybody to make that eleventh-hour plea for the protection of that species, and if we don't have access to the courts for that once-in-a-blue-moon case, then we run the risk of extinction.
The one thing that makes this bill different, fundamentally different, from any other piece of legislation that's gone through this House is that if we make a mistake, we can't fix it later. Extinction is the most final outcome, more final than an individual's death. We're talking about the loss of an entire species.
.1150
That's why this bill needs to be tougher. That's why it needs more measures to ensure that we don't make mistakes, either through politics or through concern that we'll offend somebody in the private sector. There are ways to make this work, and work for everyone's benefit. I'm pleading with you as I've never pleaded with a committee before to try to rise above political differences and to bring a strong report back to government for the kind of fundamental changes that will mean that this bill will protect species for now and for future generations of Canadians. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms May. We will begin with Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): First of all, I must congratulate you on your presentation and your concern for endangered species. The Environment Minister should be wondering why it is that today in 1996, we need to pass a law to protect endangered species. Why do we find ourselves in this position in 1996? The reason is that previous governments and environment ministers never addressed the root of the problem.
However comprehensive the bill may be, it will be of no use whatsoever to us if there are no mechanisms in place to monitor enforcement. It will be mere window dressing. Wherever he goes in Canada, the United States and the world, the minister will be able to boast that Canada has legislation in place to protect endangered species. However, all we will have is packaging. What about the contents of the legislation? I'm not concerned about the packaging. I am confident that the minister is intelligent enough to ensure that the packaging is pleasant. However, it's what's inside that's important. I'm talking about the mechanisms and financial means in place to monitor endangered species.
Once again, the current Environment Minister, like all of his predecessors, wants to infringe upon fields of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and Newfoundland should be left alone to pass legislation to protect endangered species within their borders. They already have the financial means to do so. They have legislation in place to this effect and adequate staff in the person of the wildlife conservation officer. They do the job quite well. If the federal government is not satisfied with the results, then it should try to establish a partnership and to work together with the provinces. Then, there would be no need for you to be concerned.
When the federal government infringes upon a field of provincial jurisdiction, that's when the trouble begins. It imposes legislation and subsequently asks the provincial government to enforce it. The federal government drafts the legislation, but forces the provinces to apply it. It's a little like Bill C-68 on firearms. The Justice Minister drafted the firearms legislation, but ordered the provinces to apply it. That's what I call duplication.
The basic question is this: why doesn't the Environment Minister address the root of the problem? Why doesn't he try to legislate to reduce acid rain which greatly affects endangered species? There is a direct correlation here. Why doesn't the minister pass legislation to reduce carbon monoxide emissions?
Today, geese flying over Montreal or Ottawa - perhaps more over Montreal because of the presence there of many more industries - and passing near the big stacks soon plunge to their death. Birds, fish or any other animal which feed in the St-Lawrence in close proximity to acid rain will die because of carbon monoxide levels. More legislation should be passed to address these problems.
.1155
How do you feel about the fact that there are no laws governing hazardous products? What does a person do to get rid of PCB-based oil or any other hazardous product? That person dumps these hazardous products in the wild. The likelihood is great that a number of animals in the forest will ingest these hazardous products that have been dumped and will be poisoned.
Furthermore, how do you feel about the fact that there are no federal laws in place to prevent clear cutting? When a forestry company practices clear cutting, it destroys the habitat of birds which must either find a new place to live or die.
It will be difficult to monitor certain endangered species and I wonder how we will be able to do it. The farmer is going to want to get rid of the fox threatening his henhouse because his production is at risk.
Today, there are far more stuffed hare and owls in taxidermists' shops than in the forest. I hear what you are saying, but the problem remains the same: what are we to do if the hare or the owl disrupts the habitat of human beings?
Take, for example, the wolf pack which, in order to feed itself during the winter, strays into an area where moose and their calves have decided to spend the winter and eats them. Nature being what it is, some things will be difficult to control or prevent. We can't stop a cat from eating a swallow and we can't stop a wolf from devouring a hare or partridge in the forest. Animals do prey on one another.
I think the Minister of the Environment should get down to basics and pass a legislation to control acid rain, carbon monoxide emissions and hazardous products, ban clear cutting and promote natural habitats which, as you say, encompass all lands in Canada, with a view to preserving endangered species. Thank you.
The Chairman: You have raised some very good questions which could be taken up again during the round of questioning this afternoon. Unfortunately, the witnesses have only three minutes to respond. Ms May, perhaps you could tell us whether you agree or not with Mr. Asselin.
Ms May: I agree with many of the things he said, but I disagree about what the provinces can do. Perhaps everything is going well in Quebec since it has enacted endangered species legislation. I will let my colleague from the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature tell you a little more about provincial laws because he is a better position than I am to discuss the subject.
Everything is not going so well for endangered species in Newfoundland. No legislation is in place to protect the Newfoundland pine marten. The 300 or so remaining are threatened by forestry activities, hunters and other elements. The situation is urgent. The federal government needs to clarify that its legislation applies everywhere in Canada, with the exception of those provinces which have in place equivalent endangered species legislation. I agree with everything else you said, including your observations on cooperation at the provincial level. Provincial legislation...
[English]
Excuse me, I'm getting mixed up again. I'll go back to English.
The province can make sure the act is followed and they can enforce it provincially. I think that can work for the species that are considered provincial, but only in those provinces that actually have a law.
.1200
If we take the course we're advocating, of saying the law applies everywhere unless there is equivalent provincial or territorial legislation, we will have the effect of speeding up the day Mr. Marchi has described when the accord will be real. But if we back off and allow the provinces that don't have any legislation to sit back, which they can do, there's nothing in this law as written to give them any incentive to bring forward laws.
The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings, please.
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd like to say that I appreciated and was interested in everything you had to say this morning.
I did get in a little late, Ms Austen, so perhaps I didn't hear everything you've made a point of saying. I have a few questions or a few comments. I understand one of your major concerns is that in the cross-boundary, if the species are ranging, you're very concerned that the senior government should take responsibility, if I understand that correctly, and that you want to see some time lines and deadlines established. Is that correct?
Ms Huemer, when you suggested the language should be changed from stating that the minister may make regulations to the minister shall, I would agree with you. I would certainly make it definite that he would have to do something. But might we not be removing from the judge the discretion to make a decision if he felt a decision should not go that way? I just wonder if you could address that.
The last thing I'm concerned about is that we have heard the last couple of days in the committee from representatives - this morning certainly - from stakeholders in the resource industry and from the ranchers and the farmers who have led us to believe that over the past few years they have been making redress, trying to make up or atone for things that have been happening in the past that have harmed the species and have caused some to almost reach extinction. Would you not be willing to admit here or to agree or to acknowledge that you are aware of the actions they have made and that you agree with them or you feel there is some positive move being made or some earnest concern on their part? I haven't heard anything there.
I agree that this is of major concern. But I also know that unless people don't just mouth the word ``partnerships'', unless they sincerely mean the word ``partnerships'', unless all stakeholders go into this situation knowing they're working together and acknowledge the good others are doing, if they are doing good, then we won't reach an outcome that is positive or get what we want in the end.
Thank you.
Ms May: I wonder if I could respond to your last question first.
I'd like to acknowledge that here. I wish some of those who spoke earlier were still here. I've actually cruised the woodland operations of Weldwood Canada in Alberta with Rick Bonar, who was here presenting on behalf of the Canadian Pulp Paper Association. They are doing some innovative things on their holdings to try to make their logging operations compatible with pine marten habitat. They are actually figuring out ways, through leaving standing snags, leaving woody debris on the ground, leaving corridors along the rivers, by which they are able to build back up a population that was in trouble. I acknowledge that.
In partnership with Sheila Forsyth, whose National Agriculture Environment Committee has appeared here, we're working to come up with, if we can, a consensus on what kinds of incentives might be possible either in the tax system or market system that would somehow compensate private farmers for doing good work on endangered species on their lands. So we're working in partnership.
The fact that there are good examples unfortunately doesn't mean there aren't some very serious problems. Not everybody is marching with the front-line leaders either in mining or forestry or agriculture. Frankly, we lost the fight to protect an area with some endangered species just outside of Ottawa where we were fighting the Canadian Museum of Nature.
You never know where you're going to suddenly find someone who's decided to cut down a valuable old-growth forest, or a valuable wetland gets drained, which is critical habitat to an endangered species. Without laws, even when we have good examples to point to, we won't be able to protect species. So I take your point.
Since I think the other two questions were directed to things I've said, I'll cover them off now and then I'll be quiet.
.1205
On cross-border species, it's the Sierra Club of Canada's position that the federal government must deal with cross-border species, both international and interprovincial, in exactly the same way they deal with the species now listed in section 3. We don't think, by the way, that on international species our hook needs to be the Criminal Code.
On that I'd agree with Gisèle Jacob, but for different reasons. As a matter of national concern and international concern, Canada has all the jurisdiction it needs to deal with this. On international species we should be able to deal with plants.
When we deal at the international cross-border area, I think the restriction on plants is entirely because the government got some bad advice and decided to pin that particular provision on the Criminal Code. It doesn't make sense to me that it be that restrictive. It should be all cross-border species, international and interprovincial.
Having said that, there's no reason in the world not to include the maximum level of interprovincial cooperation in that process. When you look at the clean-up efforts in the Great Lakes, for instance, it's Canada and the U.S. that signed major water quality agreements internationally with Ontario, New York, Ohio and lots of other states and provinces in the area that became partners to those accords. But the lead in international issues must be taken by the federal government.
Similarly, when you're resolving interprovincial issues, the only way this act can work is to have an unprecedented level of political commitment, cooperation and fairy dust sprinkled over all parties forever and a day that the thing they care about most is endangered species. That's why I want the law to be better, because we can't count on all those good things coming together all at once in time to protect species.
Ms Huemer: To recap the question, you were wondering about the obligatory versus the permissive language and whether that would eliminate some discretionary power. I understand that perhaps there might be - there's always a scientific margin of error that political discretion might close even further. In that case, I would at least have some section or some provision for the minister drawing up a report as to why he or she is not listing that species and have that report available for discussion or through CEPA, some sort of back-and-forth process.
Ms Austen: I'd just like to mention that I hope nothing in our presentation sounded like we were suggesting the earlier presenters didn't care about endangered species. I think everyone who has been participating in this process wants an act that can protect species. Certainly, whether we have an act or not, it's not going to limit the value of voluntary measures that will be taken on the part of industry or just the average Joe. This will still remain important when we have an act.
Mrs. Jennings: When dealing with people in the past, I've always found that if you can go into a meeting saying I know we all care, I know we're trying to do our best, and this is what we found is wrong and perhaps you could help us or disagree with that, that's the right kind of attitude. I got a feeling when talking to some of them outside that they're really struggling to cope with their end of it too.
I'd just like to say, if I've got a minute, Mr. Chair, that I have been involved in a situation with a forest company for 16 years. I have some property that sits right here and the forestry company sits right there, surrounds me, dry-land sort, the river is right beside me and the ocean is in front of me. I've worked with them over the years. I've watched some abuse and the loggers have told me about the abuse there is.
Lately, in walking around the area, I have found something that really concerns me. I have not gone to any authorities or anything like that. I will be going to see the manager of the forest industry because we've always worked together very well. There are cables just about everywhere. You trip over them. You sit on the beach.... The surfers now are being torn to shreds when they do barefoot surfing because suddenly there's an old rusty cable there.
This is a clean-up job. Forestry has admitted over the years that they've made errors. They're trying to clean up. So my first line of attack will be to go to them and ask if they can help me, ask what we can do about this. I am almost positive they will say they'll start clean-up right now and that they didn't realize this was such a concern. I would hope that would be the answer.
.1210
That's all I'm suggesting here, that we do our first line of attack and then, if we have to get really serious, we go to the courts. As you were suggesting, nobody wants to be in court. It's a needless cost of time and money. But if it's necessary.... In the case of the owl, it was necessary. But if we can work together, I know that we'll have a much more positive result.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'll direct the question to all three panel members. Given all you know about the political and environmental working and the financial restrictions, the whole bit, if you were sitting where I'm sitting and you wanted to push for one amendment that you thought was achievable - you wouldn't just waste your time trying to push for something you knew from the start wasn't going to fly - and would do the most good, what would it be? You can each pick one.
Ms May: I'm stuck on this. It has to do with scope. My first choice, if it's doable, and it will be doable if the recommendation of the committee is unanimous - in other words, if you can get all parties to sign on to the notion that the act applies everywhere, unless there is equivalent territorial or provincial legislation.... That is actually a compromise on the view I actually take in terms of the constitutional powers the federal government has over species at risk of extinction. It's a compromise, but I think it's a workable compromise, and that would be the one I would urge upon you.
Failing a unanimous report from this committee that would give the minister the kind of support he needs to go back and get that approved, then I think the bottom line.... It has to be doable, because it's so accepted by everybody that it's federal government jurisdiction. In keeping with the approach the law has taken to restrict itself to species considered federal from past practice would be to extend the protection to cross-border species, international and interprovincial, to the same extent as section 3 now applies. That would be my one choice.
Ms Huemer: My first choice would be to change the language from permissive to obligatory language, with the amendments we discussed and perhaps provisions for some -
Mr. Knutson: Section 33?
Ms Huemer: Yes, and throughout. There are other sections - sections 36 and 42. So that would be my primary choice.
Ms Austen: I would say protect the critical habitat of endangered and threatened species, if not through a prohibition such as is included in existing provincial legislation, then through the required implementation of recovery plans.
If the scope isn't extended, that doesn't account for that much, since a lot of federal lands are national parks and that habitat is protected, but as a model for provincial legislation as well.... Without habitat protection measures in this act, on the ground it won't be as effective as we'd like.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
The Chairman: Madam Payne.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the committee. Ms May, it's always nice to see you. I'm intrigued by your presentation, as usual.
I would like you to expand a little bit. You mentioned sections 36 and 40 with regard to the exemptions. You also mentioned the fact that the Minister of Fisheries could take action on the harvesting of species without consulting the Minister of Environment and so on. Would you care to elaborate on what other changes you might want to make, or you feel should be made, in those sections?
Ms May: Thank you very much.
The exemption sections are quite over-broad. Just to go through them, as Catherine Austen already mentioned, under section 36 there are blanket exemptions that require.... Even emergency orders or any of the other regulations just don't apply in a number of blanket circumstances. We think this is open to abuse, especially since in this act it's not clear that it would trigger any kind of an environmental review. So we're recommending that there basically be a consequential amendment to the Canadian Environment Assessment Act so that decisions under section 36 and 46 would trigger an environmental review.
.1215
Of course, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act isn't all that strong either. It's not an onerous provision. It merely means the minister who is making this decision has to think through and have something filed to which the public has some access. So you begin to at least create the opportunity for public review.
In my mind, section 46 is arguably worse, because as we point out in the brief, since it deals with the responsible minister, that can be any one of three ministers - fisheries, heritage, or environment - and they're not even required under section 46 to consult each other. That's terribly weak and quite open to abuse, and again no review is required. Given the way these are drafted, you could have a scenario where a fisheries minister or heritage minister decided to give a permit that would involve the taking of an endangered species or the destruction of its habitat, even if protected by another regulation, and only on the basis of satisfying themselves and no one else.
Mrs. Payne: But in the case of fisheries, for instance, which is one I'm somewhat familiar with, there's a provision within the Oceans Act for that minister - he's under an obligation to consult with the Minister of Environment if he decides to take some action that is of a dubious nature with regard to the harvesting of species.
Ms May: The problem is that the way the act is drafted here, it depends on that reading of the Oceans Act being very strong in order to be sure that's being done. It doesn't apply in the consequential concern for the Minister of Heritage, for instance, or if the Minister of Environment is going to grant the permit and the Minister of Fisheries might object. In other words, at a minimum I think there needs to be some consulting between ministers under section 46, and public review as well. Absent some form of public review of this, it is quite open to abuse.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, please.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much.
I have a short question. I appreciate what the witnesses have had to say today. I think they've given us reason to sit back and address their concerns as a committee.
I think Mr. Knutson's question about giving us one amendment that you would like to see indicated that there is more than one amendment out there that we have to consider based on the answers of the people in front of us.
My question comes from Catherine's presentation, particularly the section dealing with migratory birds and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We're also well aware from materials distributed at the minister's news conference that birds of prey are not covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The peregrine falcon and the burrowing owl, both species either once threatened or still threatened, aren't covered under the text of the act in its strictest interpretation.
Ms Austen's presentation talked about amending the section dealing with the Migratory Birds Convention Act to respect of habitat, but should we not be making changes to cover all birds that travel between countries, not just those on the Migratory Birds Convention Act list?
Ms Austen: Yes, that's why an extension of the scope is required for federal jurisdiction over all species that cross the national or interprovincial borders. Migratory birds that aren't under the MBCA would be protected through those regulations, so making those regulations mandatory and including a recovery trigger is what is needed to give effective protection to raptors that migrate.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
One brief question from here and then we will adjourn.
.1220
In relation to the brief submitted by the Coalition for Biodiversity, when you have on page 3 a request that the political decision not be allowed, namely that COSEWIC be the final instance for a decision, you're saying that ultimately it is a scientific body of non-elected officials that is accountable to the public.
Even when it makes a mistake - and you admitted earlier that there could be marginal mistakes, if I remember correctly - I would rather be inclined to see COSEWIC as an equivalent for the endangered species as the CRTC is for broadcasting and the CTC is for transport. In other words, they are important agencies, but there is still the possibility of a political decision to change the decision of those agencies if required. The system within which we operate requires accountability in a democratic system, be that in a provincial, municipal, or federal government; it doesn't matter.
This is the background that leads to my question. Are you sure you would want to remove political accountability entirely from COSEWIC's decision?
Ms Huemer: My concern is mainly with making sure it is scientific knowledge that is indicating whether a species gets listed or not. Granted there are political shadows over every single committee, whether it be scientific or -
The Chairman: We realize that too from time to time.
Ms Huemer: Exactly. Scientists are known to be very conservative and they are known to generally err on the side of caution in terms of species protection. My main point is that we must err on the side of caution when it comes to species endangerment because there is no going back.
The Chairman: So what is your conclusion?
Ms Huemer: I would be willing to allow a consultation process between COSEWIC and the ministerial office in terms of the listing. I was speaking to Ms Jennings before, and she made a similar point. I would be willing to accept that the minister would then draw up a report stating the reasons why the listing would be inappropriate, untimely, or not doable at the time.
The Chairman: Who is finally responsible to the public?
Ms Huemer: Right now probably the ministerial office, simply because it is an elected body within the political system. But COSEWIC should be also accountable for its decisions.
The Chairman: It can't be accountable unless it runs for office.
Ms May: We believe also very strongly that the COSEWIC listing process should be scientific and that political discretion shouldn't enter into it. I think we disagree on this point.
The reason we think the members of COSEWIC should be independent scientists in the majority is so there's not a governmental influence on the listing of species and that the listing process from there is based on COSEWIC's list. In other words, if there's going to be a decision not to list a species that COSEWIC thinks is endangered, our first position in our brief is that this shouldn't be allowed. All the species listed by COSEWIC should be then designated as endangered species in the process.
.1225
If there is a political process or COSEWIC has made a mistake, I wouldn't object to the notion that a minister could make a very good case to get additional species listed. Our concern is that political intervention will work against species' survival. There may be political reasons to try to get species delisted when science tells us they're still at risk of extinction.
That's what we'd rather see. I know it's a difficult issue in the political context of who is ultimately accountable, but beyond the listing process, that takes you to stage one. Then you get into the agreements, the cooperation, the recovery plans. There's lots of political balancing and trade-offs that go on in those processes. That's where a minister's primary responsibility in the political process will be evident.
The Chairman: In the case of the moratorium on cod, which was requested by Leslie Harris in February 1990, two and a half years went by before the government declared the moratorium. Nevertheless, it did so finally. It was the government that declared the moratorium and not Mr. Harris.
You could argue that two and a half valuable years were lost, rather than moving swiftly, and the species was further depleted. But it is up to the electors to express some sort of punishment or disapproval at the next opportunity, which came, finally, in 1993. That is how we have designed our system of accountability.
Ms May: It's a brilliant example.
I was lucky enough to go around Newfoundland to 13 small coastal communities in my capacity as a member of the national round table. I worked with the Newfoundland round table. One thing that was said in many small communities was that the government never declared the moratorium. Fishery Products International declared the moratorium when they went out and could no longer find any fish.
The mechanism that we would want to see working in this kind of legislation, which of course ultimately also protects the economy...in the words of scientists we would want some recommendations to list the species at the earliest stages of vulnerability. This would send some red flags out there that it couldn't be constantly overridden by the political pressures of the moment.
I would argue that not only did we lose two and a half years, we have also lost many of the vibrant lives of some 30,000 people in small coastal communities, because they no longer have an economic livelihood. An entire ecosystem is substantially diminished and will probably never recover to the health that once existed.
Those precious years when scientists were warning and politicians were turning a deaf ear...we should never repeat that example. We should learn from it to ensure that the scientific committee within this legislation is not tampered with by the political pressures of the moment.
The Chairman: This committee will have to make the difficult decision on whether we should have government by scientists or government by elected officials.
Ms May: Elected officials can decide that they want to create a system that lets science guide them, and they can act from there.
The Chairman: That's fair enough. We can agree on that conclusion.
We thank you very much indeed.
Ms May: Thank you to the committee.
The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.