EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

.0837

Thursday, December 5, 1996

[English]

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, Madame Guay, Mr. Knutson and myself, I would like to welcome our witnesses: Vanessa Kennedy, from The Body Shop; and Scott Findlay, an associate professor from the Faculty of Science (Biology), at the University of Ottawa.

We are also being joined by a long-distance walker from Memorial University. Is that you, Professor Montevecchi?

Professor William Montevecchi (Memorial University): Yes.

The Chairman: Welcome to the committee.

Perhaps we'll start in the same order as the witnesses are listed on the order paper - namely, with Vanessa Kennedy, a presentation of some ten minutes, followed by Professor Findlay and then finally by Professor Montevecchi.

Please go ahead.

Ms Vanessa Kennedy (Campaign Coordinator, The Body Shop): Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I know it's early.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting The Body Shop to participate today. We're very excited to see this process going ahead and the legislation being introduced. But we're also very interested to be here because a lot of people wonder why a company that sells shampoo and soap would be here and involved in endangered species legislation.

The point for us is that corporate responsibility goes beyond profit-and-loss statements. It goes to addressing the needs of our communities. Around the world, The Body Shop trades in 45 countries, with retail sales of a billion dollars, and we had more than 86 million customers visit us last year.

We use our resources to address the needs of those customers and to get them involved in issues like endangered species legislation. Our role has always been to rabble-rouse about this issue and to bring clear, concise and credible information to the public, giving them an opportunity to participate, and they've all responded passionately. Their concern over endangered species is heartfelt, emotional and active-based.

.0840

Over the past eight years Canadian customers have helped us raise $500,000 to protect endangered species, signed petitions, bought acres of endangered habitat, and written letters.

When The Body Shop learned that the federal government didn't have specific endangered species legislation, we were very surprised, and we were pretty sure our customers would be shocked too. We thought our customers would be surprised and upset, and we were right.

In 1994 we put special posters, which you'll see on the front of your package, in all 111 shops across the country and produced a leaflet for them, which is also in your package, explaining the issue and the nature of endangered species in Canada.

Within four weeks our customers had made their feelings clear. They'd raised almost $60,000 through campaign T-shirts, and 75,000 people signed a petition calling on the federal government to enact effective legislation to protect endangered species. These petitions were recently presented to Parliament.

But perhaps more telling was the fact that over 3,500 children in Canada wrote letters asking for legislation to protect endangered species. Their voices are very important, since ultimately we're talking about protecting their future.

I'd like to read to you one of those letters, from a 10-year-old child in Moncton, New Brunswick. She writes:

Please help me! I am endangered! There are only about 300 left of me. I am the Vancouver Island Marmot. I live in alpine and sub-alpine areas with very steep slopes...and big, open meadows. I was happy until people came along and started to destroy my habitat. I had to hide. When I came out of hiding, the people were gone - thank heaven - but so was my home. I had to take my family with me to find a new home. But those people came and did the same thing as before. My family and I tried to find a new home again, but we couldn't. My family starved and I lost my family. I am so sad! This is happening to all the other marmots and lots of other animals, too... If humans don't act fast, before they know it, we will all be extinct. And it will be their fault. Please help me soon!

It was inspiring to read these children's letters because it showed that Canadian children ultimately understand this issue, and their concern is overwhelming. Their letters showed they understood the basic steps to protect endangered species: recognize that I'm at risk; give me a place to live; protect me. These are the same basic elements that should form the basis of this act.

We applaud the government for taking a leadership role on this issue in committing to and developing federal legislation within two years. The Body Shop supports this initiative and so do our customers. But we are concerned that the current legislation does not effectively address the three key points that Canada's children so clearly understand to be essential.

The first is to identify species at risk. Listing of species at risk is a biological determination, not a political one. The current act designates a scientific committee to review the status of species and make recommendations. The actual decision on whether to list a species or not is left in the hands of the government. They are not required to follow the recommendations of COSEWIC.

We feel that all decisions regarding the listing of species at risk should be made by an independent scientific body. Allowing political considerations to be part of the evaluation process undermines the integrity and intent of the legislation. In the four provinces currently with acts, many species recognized as endangered have not been listed. We are very concerned that might happen in the federal process as well.

The problem for us is that it could hamper community activism. The Body Shop Canada, Owl magazine, and many other organizations across Canada use the COSEWIC list of endangered species as an educational and motivational tool. It has a remarkable ability to get the average Canadian involved in this issue because the list and map help people identify with this issue. It's not

something that happens somewhere else or happens in the tropical rain forest; it's happening in our communities. Whether it be the Vancouver Island marmot, the peregrine falcon, or the prickly pear cactus, these are actual species people across Canada identify with, and when they see the list they become concerned.

The list also makes it personal when people see species at risk in their own region. I am from southern Ontario, and I'm horrified when I look at the map of endangered species that there are so many species at risk in southern Ontario they can't even fit them all on the map.

That personalization and that motivation compels people to look around them and take action in their own way, whether it be changing their buying habits, volunteering with an environmental organization, or writing letters. We are concerned that we could lose that personal activism if all the species at risk aren't listed.

For those species that are identified, their protection is not ensured by this act. The act does not automatically protect species from their greatest threat. It is to be noted that 80% of species decline is attributed to the loss of habitat, yet the act only protects a very narrow definition of residence. All further habitat protection is left to the discretion of the government. Critical habitat is to be considered on a recovery plan but does not require that those actions be taken.

.0845

The goal of this legislation is to protect endangered species; it says so right in the name. If we know the main threat to species is habitat loss, how can we not make its protection mandatory? It's like a company saying we'll guarantee our products while you're in our shop, but once you leave you're on your own. The act should prohibit the destruction of critical habitat of a species and require that steps indicated in the recovery plan be implemented.

The final element that children identified for endangered species was to protect them. This step requires the participation of all of us, but we need the government to take a leadership role and apply the act to the full extent of its moral and legal jurisdiction. Right now, it doesn't. This act should apply to all transboundary species.

The Canadian Bar Association has confirmed that the federal government absolutely has the legal authority to protect all species across political borders. By doing so, another 20% of species could be protected and our national system of protection would be more effectively implemented and coordinated.

As a company, it would be totally ineffectual for The Body Shop's 45 markets to independently produce products, signage and a refill system; it's a waste of resources. Similarly, it would be a waste of resources and opportunity for one government to develop a program to protect a species at risk, only to have it harmed by a lack of similar legislation when it crossed a provincial or national border. The biological status of a species doesn't change when it crosses a border, but it could become more at risk.

That the federal government has followed through on its commitment to introduce specific legislation to protect endangered species is good news. It's good for species at risk, for Canadians, for business, and for the international community at large. We need the federal government to set a high standard of protection with this act. Once the standard is set, we all have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure that we reach it.

The Body Shop, as a company, acts as a facilitator, bringing together several key stakeholders. For the endangered species campaign, we brought together the public and the environmental groups and gave the public an opportunity to come to the government. You obviously couldn't have 75,000 Canadians here to testify today, but we are able to bring their voices and concerns to you.

There are many other companies out there who would be interested in getting involved. They have the resources, they have the know-how, and they have the avenue to the general public that can be used to make these issues work. Through partnership we greatly enhance our chances of success, but we need the framework, we need the standard, and we need the goals set through the act first.

The Body Shop hopes we will continue to work together as we strive to meet the needs of the present while ensuring the protection of our precious resources for the future. As a company, we've done what we can to address these needs, to involve this issue in our company, and to give our customers a voice. Now we're asking for this committee and the federal government to do the same.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

Would you like to go ahead, Mr. Findlay?

Professor Scott Findlay (Faculty of Science (Biology), University of Ottawa): I'm Scott Findlay. I'm a professor of biology at the University of Ottawa. My areas of scientific expertise include conservation biology, ecological risk assessment, assessing the effects of human activities on ecosystem structure and function, and ecological economics.

I happen to be the associate director of the Institute for Research on Environment and Economy at the University of Ottawa. This institute is concerned with assessing and trying to formalize strategies for ecologically sustainable economic development. A couple of my comments today will have more to do with issues related to ecological economics than to conservation biology, but I'm going to try to wear both hats, not simultaneously.

In my view, the proposed act represents an important step towards protection of endangered species in Canada. It's a piece of legislation whose time is long overdue. Having said that, however, I think there are a number of areas in which the proposed act is inadequate, and I worry that if these inadequacies are not addressed the act will not reach its objectives.

.0850

In particular, it concerns me that the act, as currently written, will not mitigate the risks to a level sufficient to ensure the protection of endangered species in Canada, and perhaps more importantly to ensure that new species are not added to the list.

I will address four different problem areas. Several of them have already been alluded to by my colleague. The first one has to do with this issue of de-listing and listing of endangered species. The second one has to do with the issue of habitat protection and conservation and the relationship to that and the likelihood of success of an endangered species recovery program. The third one, of which I think we're all keenly aware, has to do with jurisdictional issues. This is an area I'm particularly interested in.

I've spent the last three years working on a recovery plan for the Cornwall-Massena area of concern as designated by the IJC. This area has tremendous jurisdictional problems. It's a binational boundary. In fact it's a tri-national boundary because of the Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne, so it involves provinces, states and municipalities. I've come to realize through that process that these jurisdictional issues are extremely important in ensuring the success of an action plan.

If I may, I'd like to use a metaphor to illustrate some of the concepts I'm going to be discussing. This metaphor is a concept that's borrowed from a number of indigenous cultures in Canada and elsewhere - namely, the concept of a chain of being. And I didn't want to bring in a metal chain today because I felt I wouldn't get past security, but I brought in a paper one. The idea here is that each link in the chain represents a component of the environment that's necessary for a species' survival. We can consider any activity that weakens the strength of an individual link in the chain as one that poses a risk to a species in question. Conversely, any human activity that strengthens weak links, which is what we're trying to do in this legislation, is a way of mitigating risks to species.

So with that metaphor in mind, then, let's move to the first problem, which is the issue of de-listing and listing of species. As my colleague pointed out, the designation of species on the list is based on the recommendations of the COSEWIC committee. However, the ultimate decision as to whether a species will or will not appear on the list is left to the Governor in Council. Presumably, this is to allow for situations where the Governor in Council feels there are species COSEWIC wants to list that the Governor doesn't feel should be listed, or conversely, there are species that COSEWIC has not listed but which the Governor in Council feels should be listed.

In my view, either of these situations could only occur when there is disagreement between the Governor in Council and COSEWIC as to either the assessed risk to a species, or alternatively, to what constitutes acceptable risk. And in risk assessment, which is one of my areas of expertise, we have to distinguish between these two things.

With respect to this issue of assessed risk, I presume that the Governor in Council would yield authority to people who have expertise in this area and would not presume on their judgment as to what constitutes the true risk to a species. Therefore, I presume the real issue then boils down to what constitutes an acceptable risk, and the idea here is that the Governor in Council may differ from COSEWIC as to what constitutes acceptable risk.

The issue of acceptable risk is a normative issue. It's not a scientific issue. It's outside the purview of science. The risk assessment is a scientific issue, but the definition of acceptable risk is not a scientific issue. That said, it is important that the issue of acceptable risk is not left to political whimsy. And in my view, it's important that safeguards be built into the act to ensure that does not happen. In my brief I have a suggestion about how one might do that, but I don't want to go into that now. I just want to raise the issue as an important one.

.0855

The Chairman: You might as well do it now.

Prof. Findlay: I would suggest, then, that we either amend clause 31 such that the Governor in Council can only amend the list of wildlife species at risk if it is first demonstrated that the risk assessed by COSEWIC is lower than what is deemed to be the acceptable risk, or the other way around, if it is decided to list the species that COSEWIC has not listed. Alternatively, we should eliminate clause 31 entirely and make COSEWIC solely responsible for the list of wildlife species at risk.

The second issue relates to habitat protection. As currently worded, and as my colleague pointed out, the bill stipulates protection only of ``residence'' habitat - this occurs in clause 32 - and other ``critical habitat'' protection is provided only under clause 34 - namely, emergency orders.

In my view, the true value of clause 32 depends critically on the definition of residence, which is not defined in the bill. In the lay public's eyes, the habitat of a species is generally construed to be the habitat in which it breeds, but for many species, and possibly for the majority of species, breeding habitats represent only one of several links in this chain.

Many fish, for example, spawn in one habitat, nurse their young in another habitat, feed in yet another habitat and overwinter in still another habitat. The same is true of many reptiles, birds and amphibians. So each of those habitats represents a link in this chain. And if any one is broken, the chain is broken and the species is lost.

The concept of a critical habitat, in my view, is even more problematic because it implies there is a habitat that is not critical; that is, that there are areas used by species which therefore represent part of its habitat, but which are not important to its survival.

As a scientist, I can assert unequivocally that the demonstration that one habitat is important to a species and one isn't is virtually impossible in practice. The best we can do as scientists is to survey the range of habitats used by species and try to document those habitats. And perhaps, if we're lucky, we will be able to assess, for example, the relative amount of time a species spends in a particular habitat. Determining which habitat is important and which is not is extremely problematic.

Thus, since critical habitat cannot be operationalized, at least in this sense, it should not appear in the act.

One possible solution is to define critical habitat as any habitat used by an endangered species that is at risk. In other words, the logic here is that if a habitat used by a species is at risk, then the species itself is at risk. Under this definition, then, the critical habitat of a species will change in time as human activities and the landscape change.

To return to this chain example, we can consider the critical habitat for a species at a given time to be those links which by virtue of human activities are weak, since not all links will be weak, and moreover, the strength of each link will change over time.

So my suggested revision is that clause 32 be rewritten such that the provisions apply to any and all habitats used by listed endangered or threatened species.

.0900

Thirdly, on this issue of jurisdiction, in the present format the bill provides explicitly only for those species which are found or whose habitats are found on federal lands. If I have interpreted these clauses correctly - and I must say it's rather hard to interpret them - the bill would not apply to species found only on provincial lands, and moreover, the protective measures in clauses 31 to 34 would be taken only on federal lands.

As far as I'm concerned, there are three important issues here. First, as was pointed out by my colleague, from an ecological perspective, political jurisdiction is irrelevant. If one very weak link in the chain is on provincial lands, diligent and conscientious strengthening of links on federal lands will do little to improve a species' chance of survival and in effect the effort is wasted. I would argue that in these times we cannot afford to waste our efforts.

Second, the hope that more regional jurisdictions, mainly provincial governments, will strengthen their links - i.e., will strengthen those links that lie on their lands or for which they have jurisdictional authority - in my view is a forlorn one, not because provincial governments lack the motivation but because of the problems imposed by jurisdictional scale. Consider, for example, two provinces which share a link but which because of jurisdictional myopia see only that part of the link in their jurisdiction. Each may decide to allow some weakening of that part of the link in its jurisdiction, since from its perspective the link will be strong enough to bear the required load. But because neither sees the entire link, neither is able to assess the risks activities in their respective jurisdictional domains pose to the integrity of the whole link. The result is a broken link and a species lost. I should say the history of environmental management is littered with these examples of the so-called ``tyranny of small decisions''.

Third, and this is an issue I'm particularly concerned about, is the issue of social equity. The fact that such a bill as the one we see before us is being tabled at all means the majority of Canadian citizens see endangered species as a public good, something that should be preserved for the benefit not only of all people today but of future generations. The issue of course is who should pay for this good. To some extent we all pay, since federal resources will be used to develop, implement, and monitor species recovery programs. However, some people will bear an additional cost in lost recreational or economic activities that might otherwise occur on federal lands.

However, as it is currently worded, these opportunities may well not be lost on provincial lands, even though such activities may pose a real threat to the overall objective, namely the maintenance of the public good. So not only are those people I would call the ``federal land-user group'' assuming the lion's share of the real cost of preserving a public good, but they must do so with the knowledge that their efforts may well be undermined by users of provincial lands, who do not assume any of the costs.

In other words, under the proposed act the costs of attempting to keep the chain intact are borne primarily by those whose activities would otherwise affect links or parts of links on federal lands, while those whose activities may affect the integrity of links on provincial lands assume no cost. From a perspective of social equity this would seem to me to be rather unfair. Therefore I would suggest that clauses 30 to 32, the regulations under clause 42 and emergency orders, apply to all and any lands, irrespective of political jurisdiction, and not only insofar as individuals of those species or habitats are found on federal lands.

The Chairman: Thank you, Professor Findlay.

What you call ``jurisdictional myopia'' is commonly known as the Canadian Constitution; so you will understand why this committee is entrusted with a rather difficult task.

.0905

Professor Montevecchi please.

Prof. Montevecchi: I have a few slides. Could I set them up?

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. My name's Bill Montevecchi. I'm from Memorial University in Newfoundland. I chair a bio-psychology program there that's focused on behavioural ecology and animal behaviour. I chair the recovery team for the harlequin duck in Canada, hence my interest in endangered species legislation.

I've worked with Dr. Findlay in the past and work with him now on a letter that is circulating around Canada. It's being signed by biologists, physical scientists and environmental scientists and will address some of the concerns you've heard already that I will reiterate. The letter will eventually be submitted to the Prime Minister, addressing these issues. I'll try to address them now.

After listening to the other two speakers, I'm sure the committee will get a lot of redundancy. That's probably good, because I think there are key issues that can be addressed and corrected to make the legislation more effective.

The points I'll raise are few and the points that have been raised even this morning are few, but they seem critical. The four I'll try to address this morning are four we've just heard about. The one that's a little different is habitat protection and the implications of that issue. Second is the issue of transboundary species that move between provinces. Third is disturbance, which really isn't included. We have protection against killing of animals and harming them, but not disturbing them. For endangered species that's critical.

The final and most important point for me, because I'm a scientist, is the issue of the actual designation of species on the basis of scientific information and by scientists, even though that would be enacted, obviously, by the government. If we don't make decisions on that basis - which is the best information we have - then I'm not sure what kind of basis we have left on which to make those decisions. I think that's critical and I'll try to address all of those issues briefly.

First and foremost, it's really worth while to say that as a Canadian scientist and as Canadian scientists we really look at this as a positive interaction and a constructive one. We're actually here to help, not to obstruct. The focus here is to make the legislation more effective than it is in its current form, and in some cases even a bit more effective than it was in its first writing back in 1995. A few things have been changed that have actually weakened the current bill as it stands.

.0910

The other thing is to look at this as a Canadian opportunity. Canada has a tremendous opportunity to forge a global leadership role in all of these issues. I say that really seriously because most countries, whether -

The Chairman: Please go into the subject matter. You will cut into the question period if you prolong your presentation too much.

Prof. Montevecchi: Okay.

I think we have an opportunity in Canada to protect endangered species in other countries, whether or not they have endangered species legislation. They don't have the opportunity we have in Canada. That's why I'm here.

I think the first and most critical threat to endangered species is habitat protection. We've heard that until now the single most important thing we can do to protect species is to protect their habitats.

Bill C-65 provides habitat protection for endangered species on federal lands. That's about 5% of the land base of Canada. That's not adequate to protect endangered species in Canada. We need habitat protection for endangered species in places other than federal lands. The federal land base is simply not great enough.

This is a map of insular Newfoundland, where I'm from. We think of Newfoundland as being a place of wilderness and probably one with the most wilderness in Canada. The white areas on the map are places of uncut forest. That map was generated in about 1990. Those white dots have exceedingly decreased from that time. There aren't many of those white dots on that map. That's the type of habitat that's needed for the pine marten, an endangered species. If you look at those white dots and consider how many of them are on federal land, Gros Morne National Park and Terra Nova National Park represent probably about 5% of those white dots. So it's not going to do it.

Right now in western Newfoundland, where you'll see most of the concentration of white, at a place called Star Lake a small hydroelectric project is going in that will generate 12 megawatts of power. It's going to threaten pine martens in that area. There's no legislation in Bill C-65 that will do anything to help protect that species.

The issue of habitat protection, if you want to scale it up on a higher level, is really about moving from single-species management. By necessity, the very nature of endangered species legislation is crisis management. By scaling up to habitat protection in the ecosystem view, a number of things can be done at the same time.

Canada has a commitment through the United Nations convention to protect biodiversity. By taking a habitat perspective on endangered species, we go a great way toward helping to protect biodiversity as well as endangered species. It moves from single-species management to ecosystem management. That's really important.

What we want to protect in our country, as Canadians, are natural ecosystem processes. We want to protect them because we don't understand them. As a scientist, I can tell you the things I know, and I can tell you a lot more about the things I don't know. We don't know how these systems work. If we can use endangered species legislation to help protect these things, then we really have to do it. You have an opportunity to do that.

We've seen single-species management in Atlantic Canada of Atlantic cod, and we know now that single-species management isn't particularly effective. Taking this habitat protection type of approach really offers an opportunity, if you think about it, because endangered species legislation is crisis management. If we take a habitat protection type of approach, you can turn it around from being a reactive kind of issue to a proactive and a preventative one. The only way to do that is through habitat protection. You can make the issue proactive rather than simply reactive to crisis. You can try to prevent the crisis. You have that opportunity.

.0915

The protection of transboundary species: this is seemingly an important one. Living in Newfoundland, we really depend a lot... And if I were from any province or territory, or aboriginal land site, or whatever, for sure I would see the value of Canadian legislation in protecting lots of our wildlife and natural heritage of the country. I think this issue of transboundary species, which again you've heard before me this morning, is really a critical one.

Canada is the only place where we would have the jurisdiction to protect animals that move between provinces, and I think it's absolutely essential that you try to act on that in this legislation. It's simply not going to work if it's partitioned out among the provinces. We're well aware of the conflicts that occur between provinces, between provinces and the federal government. That's a kind of ongoing debate.

With endangered species legislation there really isn't any conflict, there really isn't any confusion. The consensus is clear: the whole is really greater than the sum of the parts, and Canadian protection for endangered species which cross provincial boundaries is needed. I would hope you would act on it.

In the bill there is protection of endangered species against being killed or harmed. We could log out all the old-growth forest in Newfoundland and have no pine martins without ever directly killing a pine martin, if we didn't protect their habitat. But more than that, there's nothing in there for disturbance; and this is critically important. There are lots of potential disturbances to endangered species in Canada, be they ecotourism, hydroelectric developments, low-level flying in Labrador, where low-level jets right now are flying over harlequin ducks and peregrine falcons. It seems to me that legislation needs to be strengthened in terms of disturbance to endangered species.

Finally, the last issue I'll address as a scientist is I think it's really essential... And I don't think this is a power play by scientists, by any means. What scientists have to bring to this table is to show you and to try to tell you how ignorant we are, in fact, about most of these things. All we do is work to reduce uncertainty in these questions of environmental relationships, endangered species' relationships with their environments. So it's not a power play. To me it's a very clear opportunity.

We have to act on scientific information. To do otherwise completely compromises the integrity of the exercise. That's not to say you wouldn't act on the scientific information. It's to say those designations have to be made on the basis of scientific information.

We've just seen it too often that scientists really get trashed for not giving the right answers on cod and questions like that. Usually even when they do, those answers don't necessarily get to the surface. A scientific exercise should be transparent. It should be open to everybody. It should be clear. We should act on the best evidence. So it really concerns me that this designation would not be made on the basis of COSEWIC, in a scientific body, where if there's any bias at all it's an environmental bias, an endangered species bias, where the best information is brought forward. It seems to me that's the basis on which we make designations.

I can see no other basis on which to make a designation. I can't see any other credible one, to tell you the truth. I suppose there would be other ones. I don't see other credible ones.

I could give you an example of that. You might know now in the United States there's a Republican Congress. They've recently put a moratorium on listing endangered species. It's an incredibly arrogant strategy to take, it seems to me. We can think of the arrogance of humanity in this entire exercise of addressing endangered species, but to take an action like that... What does that really mean? The environment hasn't stopped being degraded. Evolution hasn't stopped. Ecological processes haven't stopped. But the Republican Congress has decided to put a moratorium on listing endangered species.

I think that's the danger. Those designations have to be made by scientists, who have to address those concerns - and they're real concerns.

.0920

When we talk about endangered species, I think foremost we're talking about our own species. If species are disappearing from the face of this planet because of our actions, we're responsible for that. But more than that, we're going to pay the price in the long run, because it's affecting us as well. That will be exceedinglyly clearer as time goes on.

I could finish up by saying that because of this ignorance I've spoken about, the best scientific approach is a precautionary one. We should always protect more than the basic minimum. I would also say to you, because it seems to be an issue whenever we have to address it in Newfoundland at least, that this isn't a trade-off of protecting species or of environmental protection at the expense of provincial rights, at the expense of jobs, at the expense of the economy, at the expense of development. In fact it's an investment. It's a long-term investment in Canada. It's a long-term investment in Canada's natural wealth and the wealth of its provinces and territories.

I'll just put up my very last slide. This is a bird that used to be incredibly abundant in Newfoundland. It's extinct now. It used to mark the Grand Banks for the Basque fishermen who first came here. That's the skull of a great auk. That bird is extinct. We're responsible for that extinction. We did it in historic times.

I'll just finish with a quotation by a fisheries biologist and naturalist. He never saw a great auk, but this is what he said extinction meant. This is what it does mean:

The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed. A vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer. But when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before one can be again.

That's what extinction means: another heaven and another earth.

Thank you very much. Good luck.

The Chairman: Thank you, Professor Montevecchi.

You need not feel guilty about the advice by the scientific community on cod you mentioned earlier, because one of your distinguished colleagues at Memorial University gave excellent advice to the Government of Canada in February of 1980 about the necessity of invoking a moratorium. I'm referring to Leslie Harris. The advice that came from the scientific community proved to be not only accurate but very timely. So you need not develop an inferiority complex or a guilt complex. I just want to give you reassurance that you need not.

Prof. Montevecchi: Thank you.

The Chairman: Now let's start with the questions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay, please.

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): First of all, I wish to congratulate our witnesses for their presentation.

.0925

I have a lot of sympathy for The Body Shop. I think that you have a very pro-active policy for the protection of species and animals.

It is obvious that a bill always raises pros and cons comments. Some people are totally against it and others are for while others yet think that the bill has not enough teeth. It is not an easy task to make a bill on endangered species. The fact that four Canadian provinces have already passed such laws has to be taken into account.

You said earlier that there was no list of protected animals. In Quebec, such a list has already been prepared. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Environment has tabled a list of animals that must be protected. It is an obligation. I believe that this reflects a pro-active policy.

I agree with you on the issue of crucial habitat that you mentioned. I do not remember your exact words, but we cannot refer solely to the habitat. It must be the crucial habitat. That change should be made to the bill.

However, we must trust provincial governments for the implementation of their own legislation. If we duplicate what already exists, we shall never reach an agreement. We must also take into account the agreement signed in Charlottetown, a few months ago, between the federal Minister of Environment and his provincial counterparts. The federal Minister of Environment has promised then to avoid new overlapping.

I can very well understand that environmentalists are for duplication. However, on the political level, it often creates situations even more threatening for the environment. So, we must trust that there will be a good communication between the various levels of government.

The protection of threatened species is in everyone's interest. You said earlier that it was not to COSEWIC to make those decisions. That committee includes not only politicians, but also scientists and all kind of people who are qualified to make those decisions.

It is more a comment than a question. I found your interventions rather interesting. I encourage you to continue your work because without you, this issue might be put aside. When you look at the economic situation, the environment tends to be put on the back burner. We must take all those elements into consideration while respecting the political side. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Guay.

[English]

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you very much.

A comment was made earlier about the importance of critical habitat. Then the phrase was said ```critical habitat' cannot be operationalized''. I wonder if you could expand on that, because we've heard consistently at committee here, from many presenters, that the whole issue of preserving endangered species rests on a basis of being able to preserve the critical habitat, rather than nests and all the rest of it.

Can you expand a little bit on this issue of whether or not ``critical habitat'' can be operationalized? Certainly that is the boundary zone where you might say the biological interests of species interact and impinge on other socio-economic activities, and that's going to be where the political and the scientific may clash, because we have competing priorities over land use and lifestyle and so on.

.0930

Yesterday, for instance, we had the suggestion in British Columbia that many roads that have been opened up in the province should simply be closed, in order to preserve the critical habitat, you might say, of the grizzly bear. That gets involved in a very deep and divided debate in the community about whether a community is going to have access the long way around the mountain or the short way.

So maybe you can expand this issue that critical habitat cannot be operationalized.

Prof. Findlay: I would be delighted to.

The issue here is that from a purely scientific perspective, if you ask me the question, in all the areas in which a species is found throughout its life cycle, the geographical areas in which a species is found, what areas are necessary to the survival and continued persistence of that species, that is a very, very difficult question to answer. What we can do, as I pointed out in my comments, is we as scientists can enumerate the sets of habitats species are found in and the use they make of those habitats. But the issue of what is necessary and crucial - critical - to the survival of that species is extremely problematic.

Given that problem, it strikes me that if you want to talk about critical habitat, then really what you should be talking about is the range of habitats in areas in which that species is found. In other words, everything is critical. Otherwise you get into this logical conundrum of the implication that there are areas where the species is found which are not necessary to its survival; and that's an extremely difficult question to determine scientifically.

So I'm keenly alive to this issue that there are conflicting requirements and demands for land and land resources which may come in conflict with the continued persistence and survival of the species. What I have a problem with is the idea that as currently worded it is entirely possible that the notion of critical habitat can be used by exponents of development to say ``this is not critical habitat''. I would argue this is what makes the limitation of the bill.

So you can eliminate ``critical'', as far as I'm concerned. You can just have ``the habitat of a species''.

Mr. Forseth: Following the logic, I suppose Earth, as a global spaceship, as it hurtles through the solar system, is the critical habitat. Therefore we now must forever not move out of our chair and do anything.

Let's have a local example, in Ontario, where there are some land fights around what is the critical habitat and what is not of the Ontario loggerhead shrike. Can you tell me what the critical habitat of that particular bird is?

Prof. Findlay: You can go out into the environment and you can survey the set of habitats that are used by that species, so there will be a set of habitats that are presumably not used by that species. If your concern is specifically with the loggerhead shrike, then you could argue that those habitats which are not used by the species are not in fact part of its habitat.

The distinction here is between the habitat of a species and the critical habitat of a species. As far as I'm concerned, those two are the same. The areas in which a species is found, whatever the activities it pursues there, are part of the critical habitat of the species. There is no habitat of an endangered species which is not critical. There are areas in the landscape which may not be used by that species, and those are not part of the species' habitat.

Mr. Forseth: You're underlining the essential weakness of the legislation, in that we are going to make decisions based on science, and you're telling us science can't tell us what really is critical habitat. So we are just going to be arguing or bargaining over a table, as a matter of political compromise, because there really is no science that can be precise enough to give us those kinds of answers.

.0935

Prof. Findlay: No. What I'm telling you is that it's not a scientific question. The concept of critical habitat... As far as I'm concerned, you have the habitat of a species, which is the range of areas it uses, and you have those areas of the landscape it does not use. All of those the species uses are part of the habitat of the species, the habitat that is critical to the survival and continued persistence of that species.

If you have the term ``critical habitat'' in the legislation then what you are going to find is that people who are exponents of projects not in keeping with minimizing or mitigating risks to endangered species are going to argue ``Yes, this particular habitat is a habitat in which this species is found, but it's not critical.''

Mr. Forseth: Then the issue is that as soon as the loggerhead shrike lands on a tree, that is its critical habitat. If a photograph can show that bird is there, that's it. No other justification is required.

Prof. Findlay: No. Again, I would argue that. And Bill would say that behavioural ecologists spend an awful lot of time documenting the use particular species make of particular types of habitats.

I have done work on sturgeon in the lower Saskatchewan River, which, as many of you may know, is a vulnerable species. One of the things we want to do is to document the sorts of habitats in which it carries out its life cycle, including spawning habitats, nursing habitats, brood-rearing habitats, feeding habitats and overwintering habitats, because those are all critical to the survival of that species.

Mr. Forseth: Go ahead, Mr. Montevecchi.

Prof. Findlay: Absolutely. Fire away.

Prof. Montevecchi: I want to add that we don't want to obscure the obvious. It isn't the task of science to obscure the obvious, but it is always our issue to say that things are complex and also to not oversimplify them when they are complex. And I agree with the issue you raised, too. It is a conundrum, as Scott said.

My first slide showed those white dots of old-growth forest in Newfoundland. It's pretty clear that we know where the critical habitat is. And I'm sure there are a lot of instances like that where we can point it out very precisely. There are going to be a lot of times when we can't, but there are going to be a lot of times when we can.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll defer to my colleagues for the next round.

The Chairman: You can come back in the second round.

Madam Kraft Sloan is next, then Mr. Steckle, followed by Mr. Finlay.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you. I apologize for being late. It's always interesting juggling competing demands.

I understand that Quebec has had endangered species legislation for about six years and that there are about 300 species they are waiting to list. But as Madam Guay has pointed out, certain species have been listed recently. Actually, about nine plant species were listed and there are 300 they are waiting to list.

Are any of you familiar with other international jurisdictions where they have endangered species legislation? Could you comment on their listing processes and the pros and cons of different ways of listing?

Prof. Findlay: I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question. Do you mean the mechanism by which species are in fact listed?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, in other jurisdictions.

Prof. Findlay: At an international level or at a national level?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: International or domestic.

Prof. Findlay: In provincial governments there is a procedure, as was pointed out by my colleague, for determining what species are so-called VTE species - vulnerable, threatened, or endangered. And again, it's generally the same sort of procedure in that it is based on the accumulation of scientific information and the designation of the species in one of those categories. So we have a set of species in Ontario, we have a set of species in Quebec - it's generally the same sort of procedure.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Does COSEWIC make that listing, or is it the Governor in Council who does the listing?

Prof. Findlay: The actual designation of -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.

.0940

Prof. Findlay: COSEWIC is at the national level. It designates a species and decides which category - extirpated, extinct, vulnerable, threatened -

Mrs. Kraft-Sloan: Right, but who lists it? It's my understanding that in Quebec, the Government of Quebec makes the decision.

Prof. Findlay: Yes, it is a governmental decision.

Mrs. Kraft-Sloan: Are there any jurisdictions where they automatically list according to COSEWIC?

Prof. Findlay: According to whatever the scientific body is that determines the listing... I am not aware of any, but that's not to say there aren't any. This is not an area I am particularly expert in.

Prof. Montevecchi: That's a great question. I can't answer it either, but it's a two-step process. Last time I raised the issue that provincially COSEWIC should have that jurisdiction. Obviously it's a governmental jurisdiction, so the ultimate enactment or effectiveness of the act for the protection is a governmental decision. That's a great question. Maybe it's a great opportunity. Maybe we could do that.

We have no endangered species legislation in Newfoundland. It's just beginning to evolve. We will certainly make this kind of recommendation. We will recommend that the designation be made on the basis of scientific information. Again, that has to go through a political process, but it would be great.

I don't know how it works in the States. I do know that they can simply decide not to designate, because I think the designations are finally political. And I think that was an example I tried to point out with the U.S. Congress.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Prof. Montevecchi: That's curious too, because often we look at the endangered species legislation in the U.S. as really quite powerful, as a good piece of legislation that's working well.

I haven't handed in my brief yet, because I rewrote it this morning, but I certainly will check that out and include that in my brief.

Mrs. Kraft-Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Thank you for appearing this morning. I also apologize, because with other prior commitments I wasn't able to be here for the first speaker, who I very much would have liked to have heard.

May I just put this question to the three of you? As we've been listening to witnesses over the last number of days, one concern comes forward that is perhaps more dominant than others. It's the fact that we have not given enough consideration to habitat protection in the legislation. Would the three of you agree that if there is a dominant weakness in the legislation it is that one? I'm not asking you to be in the affirmative, but how do you feel about that question?

Ms Kennedy: Our feedback from what our customers have indicated is that protection of habitat is very important and is intrinsic to the protection of endangered species. Through the work we've done over the years we have definitely linked endangered species and habitat protection. You need to look at the environment.

Obviously we're not experts on legislation and the issues, but we've worked with many national organizations. We're laypeople, and our feeling on reading the bill, and our advice to you, has been that it is definitely one of the key issus. I think William pointed out that you can knock down all the trees and not directly harm the species, but the species is not going to survive. So that's definitely intrinsic. And I think that is one of the strong weaknesses. I think our customers feel that way as well.

Prof. Montevecchi: My answer is yes. But I think that's an opportunity for the endangered species legislation, because it does help bring things together. Canada has that UN commitment by UN convention to protect biodiversity. It's the single best thing we can do to protect endangered species, but to protect natural process, which is what we need to protect, because we don't understand it very well... Most fundamentally, I think what would be exciting from a legislative point of view is that protecting habitat would make the legislation proactive and preventative rather than simply reactive, like it is without that habitat protection.

Prof. Findlay: I will say yes, in conjunction with the jurisdictional problem because those are the two... If I were to rank the shortcomings of the existing bill, that concern and the stipulations about where the bill applies geographically are what I would consider to be the two major failings of the bill and the top priorities.

.0945

If I may, Mr. Chairman, at some stage could I have an opportunity to respond to the comment made earlier about the political realities, etc.?

The Chairman: Please do it now.

Prof. Findlay: Excellent. Thank you very much.

One of the things you learn when you study the evolutionary process is this thing called ``redundancy''. All biological systems have built-in redundancy; and they have built-in redundancy for a very good reason. It's a fail-safe mechanism. So we have functional redundancies in biological systems.

The point made earlier by my colleague here was that we want to minimize overlap. I understand very well the reason for doing this is not just the constitutional reality our chair referred to earlier but also the resource problem. In other words, you don't want to be spending resources in two places, doing the same thing.

I would argue the history of evolution tells us a certain amount of functional redundancy is not only desirable, it's necessary. I would strongly disagree -

The Chairman: Because?

Prof. Findlay: Because the functional redundancy that is built into systems represents a fail-safe mechanism. If one mechanism fails, you have another to take up the slack. This is true of virtually any biological evolving system, which is a reasonably good model.

I would suggest for the public good, which is very highly valued by virtue of this legislation, we simply cannot take the chance of building a piece of legislation that does not intrinsically accommodate functional redundancy. The history of environmental management and conservation on a global scale is that if you leave the protection of natural resources up to local jurisdictions, because of jurisdictional myopia you get disaster. It's the well-known tyranny of small decisions.

The federal government here has the opportunity to do something about that; to avoid that problem. I think it's incumbent on it to do it.

Mr. Steckle: I would like to ask a question about a comment made earlier. You alluded to the fact that in the 1995 review and then leading up to the legislation currently we have weakened the current bill. Can you give some indication to the committee what you meant by that?

Prof. Montevechhi: It's really interesting, because it's a question that was raised earlier about COSEWIC. This is from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. This is from their legal interpretation. It's also through the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. They say the proposal released in August 1995 proposed that the official endangered species list would have to include all species listed by COSEWIC, which is the question that was asked just a minute ago. In a sense Bill C-65 no longer does this.

So one thing we were just arguing about apparently was in that earlier bill: that in fact all species that would be designated by COSEWIC would thereby be designated as endangered. That would be it, and it would be up to the government to choose the course of action or whatever. But now they're not necessarily designated as endangered. It goes another step.

This is from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. I think that's a case in point, and it's right on that point we've been talking about, about listing and designation.

Mr. Steckle: Since we're talking about Newfoundland, may I ask one further question? Is there the political will in Newfoundland today to bring about companion legislation to our current proposed legislation?

Prof. Montevecchi: Yes, I think so. I'm always encouraged whenever I work with individual people about wildlife, and even with my children, who live there. I'm really encouraged. But I don't think that in one sense takes away from what Scott said just a minute ago, that the whole is really greater than the sum of the parts here, and Canada really has a strong responsibility to act as strongly as possible.

I know a great part of this protection is the Migratory Birds Convention. That's an international treaty. That's probably even more powerful than a Canadian treaty. That would never have worked had we tried to build it up one piece at a time. Newfoundland wasn't even a part of Confederation when that went through. But Newfoundland, agreeing with New Brunswick, agreeing with Prince Edward Island...that would never have happened. It had to happen from the top down. I think now some of these jurisdictional things for best protection of a species still have to occur that way. I have confidence that Newfoundland will act as best they can to do that, but they need all the help they can get.

.0950

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now we'll have the other Mr. Finlay, without a ``D.''

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much what we've heard this morning.

I want to ask two questions of you as people who work in the field and ecological specialists. I wonder whether you have any comment on how useful or important zoos and zoological gardens are and what we can learn from our present view of them.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, it's not in the bill, is it? Or can you find a way of relating it to the bill?

Mr. Finlay: Yes, there are projects going on in zoos across this country and around the world involved with endangered species, in breeding them in captivity for release into the natural world. We're talking about critical habitat. Well, I guess a zoo can provide a critical breeding habitat. There's a lot of other habitat that animal needs to use that may not be available, or it may have to adjust to something else.

What can we learn from that? Not everybody wants to see a great auk or really cares if there was a great auk, I suggest. Scientists and biologists do. We look at the diversity of life. But some people would rather watch a football game than paddle a canoe, and that's what Paul is talking about. We could say, yes, we'd like grizzly bears, but we can only allow so much land for grizzly bears; we have to have campsites, and...

Prof. Montevecchi: So what's your question?

Mr. Finlay: You suggested that diversity is essential, your view of the web of life, if you like. You mentioned the term ``evolution.'' How do we generate that sort of awareness in enough people to make it the important aspect of how we manage this planet? Can we point to an example where we didn't pay attention and something serious happened where we can all say we're going to be affected by the lack of biodiversity?

Prof. Montevecchi: I suppose we could take northern cod in eastern Canada. It's not a different issue, really. It's our interaction with wildlife on the planet. If we don't pay attention to scientific information, we can get it all. I can talk to fishermen who will tell you we can get it all. In Newfoundland we can harvest all the old-growth forest. We can do it; it's not a problem.

The question is, would you rather watch a football game or paddle a canoe? But maybe it comes down to that it would be nice if you could do either one. Some people will do one and some people will do the other, but if we all had to watch football games, then I think we might be really stuck.

Prof. Findlay: I think the point here is that we have before us a bill that by virtue of the fact that it is being tabled is a recognition that the conservation of endangered species is a public good, that it is in fact being valued by the public at large - not everybody, but nothing ever is.

The issue here is that if we produce, at great cost, a piece of legislation that is designed to do something, we have to ensure that the bill is constituted in such a way that it maximizes the chances of realizing our objective. Our appearance here today is designed to provide some suggestions to this committee as to how to go about that.

.0955

The issue of whether there are people out there who like to watch football versus play sports or hike in the wilderness is an interesting one, but in my view it already is valued.

Ms Kennedy: The public may not want to go out and watch birds or go look at flowers, but when they understand that in maintaining those things, not just for people who want to enjoy them but for their biological benefits to protect us as a species, things like the fact of cures for cancer being found in plants... These things in the long term will benefit us. Not just having them there, but the well-being of our communities definitely makes something like this act relevant to all Canadians.

Again, that's where partnership can come into play, with getting that out and helping people understand that it's not just for the people who want to hike a mountain or look at butterflies; it's for everybody and for our well-being. I think Canadians, regardless of how active they are in the environment, understand that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next is Mrs. Kraft Sloan, then the chair, and then we'll move on to the next witness.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think it's obvious to a lot of people around this table that the natural environment exists for more than our use and our recreation. I mean, we're part of the natural environment and we can separate that.

There was some discussion earlier about the need for science to be transparent and open to the public. I find that rather fascinating, because it's hard for a lay person to understand the language of science sometimes. Perhaps we need better engagement in the school system to prepare people for that.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the citizen enforcement section of the act, where a citizen is allowed to bring out a civil suit.

Ms Kennedy: I can speak as a lay person who has people to explain the scientific basis to me.

I think it goes to show that this is an issue and an act that has to be taken to heart by all members of the community, not just left in the hands of the government to implement it, that we all have a responsibility to do that. It provides a mechanism, again, for the general public and citizens to be involved and to be intrinsic in protecting our endangered species. So I think the inclusion of that is a powerful statement and a good opportunity.

The only criticism I've heard of that is there seem to be many obstacles or difficulties in getting the use of that act. If you're launching an action to protect an imminently endangered species, you have to wait for a government to investigate it. Then only upon court judgment of the government not taking action appropriately or having a relevant enough action are you allowed to proceed. So although it's a powerful statement that the public does have a role to play and has to take responsibility, I believe there is some concern that the difficulties in using that section make it somewhat burdensome.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Prof. Findlay: I'm a strong believer in participatory democracy, and as such, I feel that this section or allowance in this act is absolutely crucial. I would say, however, that the problem, of course, is the potential may not be realized because of resource limitations.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the royal commission report on aboriginal peoples. One of the things the report alludes to is the lack of resources that have been traditionally allocated to indigenous peoples for active public participation in the democratic process. I think if this stipulation or this section in the act is to work, there will have to be the resources that will allow the citizenry at large to participate in an active manner.

Prof. Montevecchi: I concur. I think it's very important that be done. I think most people who have reviewed it, who have looked to the legislation, concur that it's really an important aspect of the legislation.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Some of the private landowners who have come before the committee have concerns that this section is going to create a situation in which they lose their livelihoods. There has been a bit of alarm about this. I think perhaps your statements about the different kinds of conditions that have to be triggered before individuals can go through this process is a protection on their side. I wonder if you have any suggestions.

.1000

I know we're talking directly about the legislation, but we want to be able to implement the legislation. We want people to have comfort. You mentioned how important it is that Canadians from all walks of life participate in this because it's our responsibility and not just the government's responsibility. The reality is if people took responsibility then we wouldn't have to have endangered species legislation.

I'm just wondering if you have some words of advice on how we can bring many different perspectives into an understanding and appreciation of this and soften some of the discomfort they might have around this sort of legislation.

Prof. Montevecchi: You mentioned education earlier. I think that's always an appropriate way to go. It starts early. Obviously, these co-management types of strategies are important today. You have to see both sides of the question. There's never any doubt about it.

I'm sure it's part of the difficulty of your task when there's always this problem of jobs or livelihoods being threatened. There's a greater integration where this kind of legislation really does a lot to invest in the wealth of Canada. It really does a lot to create jobs. We have to look at the very positive spin-offs as well, of protecting these species and what it will do. I think there can be a great economic return on that side as well. I guess education and user groups working together would be my answer to that.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: I'd like to refer again to The Body Shop's submission. We've heard the theme today that we all have a responsibility. In your submission you say:

We need the federal government to set a high standard of protection with this act. Once that standard is set, we all have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure that we reach it.

The Body Shop often acts as a facilitator, bringing together several key stakeholders in an issue. There are many other companies who may be interested in working in partnerships with the government, the public and the non-governmental organizations.

We've spent a fair time today recognizing, you might say, the paramountcy of critical habitat. Would you, as an organization, be prepared to link up with other non-governmental organizations to develop a compensation fund to help persons who can get really hurt economically by species protection, especially related to their habitat, so they can be involved and save habitat rather than seeing the act as ``me or thee''?

It relates to the principle of proscribe and subscribe. It's very easy to write out a prescription for someone else of what they should do without subscribing to it, enjoining it and paying for it also. That's the principle I'd like you to respond to. Do you see any avenue where some new effort can be made outside of government to help those who may see that this kind of legislation is something they will fight against because of their own survival of their species, whether it's the small hobby farm or whatever?

The Chairman: Will you please give a brief answer?

Ms Kennedy: I think there are those opportunities. If this is going to work and we are going to bring everybody to the table, we have to acknowledge those concerns. If you look at the Angus Reid poll done in 1995, private landowners do support endangered species legislation. They would be willing to set aside land to protect those species. I think they understand intrinsically that these interests protect their interests in the long term.

As a company, The Body Shop has invested many resources in this. To run ``There Otter be a law'' campaign specifically, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have raised almost $500,000 over the last six or seven years for these issues and we provided free resources to people across the country. That is the best way we have had as a company to get people involved, support these issues and take the money we've already spent to raise money to give back to those issues.

I think companies are interested in that. There are environmental grant-making associations to look at how we can make efforts being done in the community more effective. Perhaps that is one of them. So setting the standard and getting all of those players involved to find venues is not only possible but necessary.

The Chairman: Two brief comments.

Prof. Montevecchi: Yes, I would agree. I think there are lots of positive and constructive things happening already.

.1005

In Newfoundland, where logging's going on, there's tremendous economic pressure on logging companies to log in different ways and help protect and preserve endangered species. Probably the worst thing the logging industry can do in Newfoundland is hurt itself by endangering any more endangered species. It has an economic interest in it right now, and I'm sure it would be willing to invest in it. I'm sure there are many other non-governmental companies, corporations and private individuals that would be willing to invest in that.

Prof. Findlay: I have two quick points.

First, it's my experience with things like the Ontario wetland policy that the perceived impact of the policy on private landowners might be quite different and often is quite different from the actual impact.

Second, the issue of who pays for the public good and who ends up paying the cost relates back to this issue of social equity. In my view, if such legislation is to be effective to bring people on board and engage them, we will have to ensure that the costs of endangered species legislation are not inordinately borne by a few, which is why I made the point about the jurisdictional issue here. That encourages precisely the sort of inequity we want to avoid.

The Chairman: I understand representatives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are in the room already. The next witness is ready to go, and that makes it difficult for me to ask some questions I would have liked to ask. Let me simply make a comment.

This committee is painfully aware of the fact that the success of this legislation depends on jurisdiction and on habitat. While there is work we can do to strengthen the habitat component of the legislation, we are stuck on the jurisdiction. We can't change the Constitution here. Therefore, even if it may be relevant from an ecological perspective, it is painfully relevant from a political perspective and we have to deal with that reality.

It will therefore be necessary for us, whenever we are faced by this issue of jurisdiction, to remind ourselves and others of the necessity of ensuring that there is strong mirror legislation by the provinces. Where the federal government does not reach the provinces must reach, so the network is complete and the picture is full and not fragmented.

If we do not succeed in doing that, this piece of legislation will have very limited impact. Therefore, we have to continue to mobilize public opinion in order to ensure that this coming together of mirror legislation - federal and provincial - takes place if we want to do a satisfactory job of protecting the endangered species.

With that piece of unsolicited wisdom I would like to thank you for appearing before us and for the input you've given us. All three of you have been very helpful - Ms Kennedy, Professor Montevecchi and Professor Findlay. We look forward to some input from you by mail or other means in the weeks to come, as we make progress toward the clause-by-clause reading of the bill, if you have specific suggestions to make.

We'll now have a quick change of forces and I will ask Mr. Knutson whether he will take my place. I invite the next witness to come to the table please.

.1009

.1012

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): The clerk has just advised me we're expecting a vote in about half an hour.

Mr. Doubleday, please begin.

Mr. William Doubleday (Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

First, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans supports the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is mandated to conserve aquatic species, and as the responsible minister under the proposed legislation the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will take action to protect listed aquatic species and their habitats.

Secondly, I would like to emphasize that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has at his disposal two powerful and effective legal instruments to complement the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act in protecting aquatic wildlife. These are the Federal Fisheries Act and the new Canada Oceans Act, which apply to all aquatic species and are properly drafted to reflect Canada's jurisdiction over all aquatic species out to the 200-mile fisheries limit.

The Fisheries Act includes powers, duties, and functions to conserve and manage Canada's fisheries in sea coast and inland areas in the interest of present and future generations.

.1015

The Federal Fisheries Act promotes the broad application of a precautionary approach to the conservation, management, and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect marine resources and preserve the marine environment. Essential elements of the Fisheries Act are the protection of fish habitats and the prevention of pollution of water frequented by fish. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as the minister responsible for aquatic species, may make an emergency order under the Fisheries Act when a recovery plan under the proposed endangered species legislation is inadequate or if immediate action is required to protect an endangered aquatic species.

An example of the powers of the Fisheries Act to implement a recovery plan to protect aquatic species is the fast response to the drastic and precipitous decline in northern cod during the early 1990s. When it became apparent that cod stocks were declining rapidly, a recovery plan of unprecedented proportions in the form of a wide-scale moratorium on fishing for most cod stocks was declared. This recovery plan for cod and other Atlantic ground fish will cost about $1.9 billion over a number of years. This plan was accomplished in the absence of any listing by COSEWIC. The powers contained in the provisions of the Fisheries Act enabled the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to move swiftly and effectively in the development and implementation of this recovery plan.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to bring to the committee's attention the new Canada Oceans Act, which is on the point of becoming law. The Canada Oceans Act reaffirms Canada's role as a world leader in oceans and marine resource management. The Oceans Act promotes the understanding of oceans, ocean processes, marine resources, and marine ecosystems to foster sustainable development of the oceans and their resources. It also promotes integrated management of oceans and marine resources. The act encourages the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystems.

Of particular relevance to the deliberations of your committee today, the mechanism outlined in the Canada Oceans Act for establishment of protected areas gives an ability to promulgate regulations to describe a protected area geographically, establish zones within it, and limit activities that may take place in those zones or in the area. This can be a very powerful instrument to protect the habitat and improve the survival of marine species when necessary.

On listing criteria, I would like to elaborate somewhat on the public debate that's taking place in the context of the IUCN meeting, the meeting of the World Conservation Union, over the criteria for listing marine species, so the committee may better understand the point of view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We consider that responsible ministers must be consulted on and be party to agreement on listing criteria, since responsible ministers will have to develop and implement recovery plans. We consider that the process for developing listing criteria should be scientifically rigorous, open, and transparent, with examination by a broad range of scientific experts - as open as could best be achieved through formal involvement of the community of responsible ministers.

We consider that listing criteria for marine species must take into account modern marine ecology so appropriate criteria can be developed for aquatic species. Universal criteria currently used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature result in listings of marine species that are widespread and abundant. Such listings are not credible, and they compromise the value of valid listings.

.1020

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to participate fully in the development of the criteria COSEWIC will use as a basis for listing species.

I've also included three graphics in the opening statement. The first one shows a long history for two marine fish species, Pacific sardine and northern anchovy, off California. These were chosen because cores of the ocean bottom reveal the history of the dynamics of these species through the deposits of scales in those sediments. These cores go back to about 200 A.D., which is long before the modern era.

If you look at these graphs, you can see that for both species there are very wide variations in abundance, variations of more than a factor of ten. There have been precipitous declines and rapid recoveries many times. So a percentage change of say 20% over ten years, or three generations, as is one of the criteria IUCN is using and the one that resulted in cod being listed by IUCN as a ``vulnerable'' species, would mean Pacific sardine and northern anchovy would have been ``vulnerable'' many times before there was any fishery for them.

I've also included a map that shows the distribution of the Atlantic cod. The IUCN criteria are applied on a species basis, not a management unit basis. This map shows where Atlantic cod is found. As you can see, Atlantic cod is found throughout the North Atlantic, over a vast area, hundreds of thousands if not millions of square kilometres. There are a number of large populations of Atlantic cod. Overall the adults, or spawners, of Atlantic cod number in the hundreds of millions. Also, cod, like most marine fish species, have rather a high fecundity. A female spawner typically produces millions of eggs.

If you multiply millions of eggs times hundreds of millions of spawners, you can see cod has the potential to increase quite rapidly under favourable conditions. Indeed, the largest of the Atlantic cod stocks, off Norway, has increased by a factor of perhaps five from the late 1980s until the early 1990s.

So we're dealing with very dynamic resources and many of these species are distributed over large areas. A 20% decline in abundance over ten years may not have any real significance from the point of view of survival of the species, while it may be an important issue from the conservation point of view - maintaining the species at its most productive level.

I've also included a graph of lobster landings in Atlantic Canada from 1960 to 1994. Lobster landings are a rather good indicator of lobster abundance. You'll notice the landings increased from about 15,000 tonnes in the early 1970s to about 45,000 tonnes in 1990. This was a very widespread increase in lobster, all the way from Newfoundland to Maine. We consider that it mainly reflects an increase in the productivity of the lobster resource.

.1025

The highest level of the lobster resource since the last century was 1991. Not surprisingly, in the last few years the catches have declined from that peak. If there's no further decline and the catches remain at the high level of 1994, the IUCN criteria would list this as a vulnerable species by the year 2001, even though its abundance would remain higher than it has been at almost any time during this century. I think the committee can understand the difficulty we would have explaining to the lobster fishermen that lobster is now vulnerable even though it is very abundant compared with almost any other time during the present century.

To conclude, the Fisheries Act is a powerful instrument, one that can be employed effectively in the conservation of aquatic species. The Canada Oceans Act will be effective for the protection of marine habitats and endangered marine species. The Fisheries Act is being revised and the new or updated Fisheries Act will have provisions enabling the minister to override fisheries management agreements to the extent necessary for the protection of listed aquatic species. Fisheries management agreement can be overriden out of consideration for conservation of the resource, because section 12 provides for fishery management orders to do so. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can prohibit fishing or harvesting of marine plants if there is evidence the conservation of that resource or endangered species is at risk.

In our view, the new Canada Endangered Species Protection Act can and should complement the revised Fisheries Act and the new Canada Oceans Act in Canada. The Fisheries Act has provided, in our view, the most effective protection for aquatic species and their habitats and it should continue to be the legislative instrument of choice for them.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Good morning Mr. Doubleday.

The House is studying the new Bill C-62 on fisheries. What legislation will supersede the other for the protection of fish and marine plants? Will it be the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act or Bill C-62 which is presently debated in the House?

[English]

Mr. Doubleday: My understanding is that the Fisheries Act will take precedence when it's applied to aquatic species.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Here again, there will be an overlap between a piece of legislation under the Department of Environment and a legislation under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It has been the case for very long. The Department of Environment ran into some problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the implementation of some overlapping provisions of the law.

I know that Bill C-62 takes very seriously the protection of fish and marine plants. I also know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given himself a discretionary power, as did the Minister of Environment. How will they agree when a real problem will oppose the two departments? How will it be solved?

[English]

Mr. Doubleday: This issue of a potential conflict or overlap between the two pieces of legislation has been discussed at length in the process leading up to the tabling of the bill. We believe the establishment of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the responsible minister who implements the endangered species legislation for aquatic species eliminates this difficulty. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can choose between the legislative instruments at his disposal to find and apply the most effective conservation measures to protect endangered species. The responsible minister provision is very important in this context.

.1030

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: As you know, COSEWIC is collecting information in order to protect species that are threatened or that might be threatened and its role is to make recommendations. Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans work in cooperation with COSEWIC or does it intend to do so? Has the COSEWIC submitted recommendations to you? I would like to know if there is a cooperation at that level.

[English]

Mr. Doubleday: I believe COSEWIC has been in existence since 1976, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been a participant and member of COSEWIC since that time. Over the years the committee has considered a significant number of fish and marine mammal species, producing status reports and listings, and we have taken action to protect listed species that came forward from COSEWIC. Examples are the recovery plan for the beluga in the St. Lawrence River and the measures we've taken to protect right whales in the Bay of Fundy and harbour porpoise in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy area - and I could give other examples.

We have supported and participated in the COSEWIC process and implemented measures to protect listed species.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: In the material you presented here today you said an example of the powers of the Fishery Act to implement a recovery plan to protect aquatic species is the fast response to the drastic and precipitous decline in northern cod during the 1990s. You say the powers contained in the provisions of the Fishery Act enabled the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to move swiftly and effectively in the development of an implementation of this recovery plan. You come to the committee and you say essentially a falsehood, in print, for all to see.

The chairman of our committee just moments ago pointed out how scientists as early as the 1980s were calling for a dramatic reduction in fishing. So certainly the two words ``swift'' and ``effective'' are just not true. We know the whole country knows the word ``swift'' cannot apply.

There's still a question about the word ``effective''. It's still very much in question. I haven't heard any of the scientific community saying now all is well and fishing can recommence as it once was.

You talk about the considerable power you have under your legislation. How can you assure us, especially based on past performance, that the power will be used wisely and effectively?

Mr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, I think I should reply to the premise of that question before addressing the question itself.

I understand some testimony before this committee has indicated the Harris panel recommended closure of the fishery in 1991. This was not my recollection. I went back and I read the Harris report conclusions yesterday. I can give a copy of the report to the committee, if you're interested. They did not recommend closure of the northern cod fishery in 1991. What they recommended was reducing the fishing mortality to 20% from a level of about 40%, which was the estimate at the time.

I've also noted that there has been some testimony to the effect that if COSEWIC had existed, they would have given advice on northern cod many years earlier and the drastic measures would not have been necessary. As I said a few minutes ago, COSEWIC has been in existence since 1976. They produced status reports on a number of species and recommended that some of them be considered vulnerable and some endangered, but even though they had ample opportunity over sixteen years to do so, they never produced a report on cod.

.1035

I was involved in the cod issue at the time, and I think all these observations about recommendations many years before to drastically reduce the fishing pressure have an element of hindsight to them. The Harris panel consulted quite widely, and if you read that report I don't think you'll find even a minority view expressed that really drastic action should have been taken earlier. Looking back now, one might conclude, knowing what's now known to everyone, that earlier action would have at least mitigated the decline. But at the time this view was not being expressed.

The action taken with respect to northern cod and the other Atlantic groundfish was taken quite quickly when the rapid decline became apparent. The northern cod fishery was quite good in 1990. The inshore catch was over 100,000 tonnes for the first time since the early 1980s.

It was 1991 when the fishermen had difficulty finding fish. Our research survey showed a decline by about a factor of two from the previous year. It was, I believe, February 1992 when the offshore fishery was put in check, and it was the beginning of July when the inshore fishery was put under moratorium.

So I suppose it was not instantaneous, but I think it's fair to say it was a rapid response, particularly considering the magnitude of the issue and the magnitude of the response. I believe that it does demonstrate that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can and will take strong conservation measures when they're necessary.

Thank you.

Mr. Forseth: I have just one supplemental on some of the other material you've presented here. I'd just like you to embellish on the diagram about lobster landings, where we see somewhat of an historical take with a real blooming in the 1980s and now a potential fall-off.

Looking at this diagram, I'm concerned. We might find that the fall-off will again be precipitous and that the species is actually threatened.

This diagram doesn't really show the changes in the regulations, in the political and regulatory climate, you might say, over that period of time and it doesn't show what was happening concerning the technological aspect in the development of satellite locators and the change in gear and so on, along with the ability to pursue. Nor does it show the change in the economic situation at the same time. There were alternative choices for harvest. When someone's looking for a livelihood they're going to pursue the easiest economic highway, and when one road is blocked, they're going to start putting pressure on another resource. Also, opening up trade barriers meant the ability to spread the market around the world, and the ability to transport lobster in one day to the other side of the earth created demand.

Those other things may have a lot to do with what's going on here. In looking at this diagram, I'm worried that the steep rise in the 1980s means essentially that the lobster as a species has almost been done in and that we're going to find this chart showing lobster dropping right off in the next couple of years.

Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, I can't give a really detailed answer to that today because time won't permit. However, this question was addressed in considerable detail in a report by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. I think it was made public a year ago, in November 1995. There have been technological changes and regulatory changes during that long period. There was a tightening up of the regulations in the 1970s, which reduced the amount of poaching and limited the number of traps lobster fishermen could use. There have also been technological changes. Fishermen know better where they are now than they did thirty years ago, and there is some indication that the fishing effort is more widespread than it has been.

.1040

Nevertheless, these changes don't account for this vast increase. The scientific studies of the early 1970s indicated that the majority of the lobster stocks, the ones that represent the majority of the catch, were already quite heavily exploited at that point, and increasing the exploitation rate would only account for a very small increase in catches. This increase reflects an increase in the abundance of lobster on the Atlantic coast.

The question of whether lobster could decline precipitously over the next few years is a very real one. It's quite possible that the lobster abundance could decline as fast as it has increased, or faster. We're not taking credit for the increase being the result of the management measures, although they may have contributed to some extent. The same natural factors that resulted in increased productivity could very well bring a decrease.

The reason this graph is presented here is that natural resources like lobster, shrimp and crab have a fairly wide range of natural variation, and no matter what we do, they will increase and decrease over time, often on a time scale of tens of years. We can moderate these fluctuations to some extent and we can manage a fishery so as to obtain the best benefits when the productivity is high, but we'll never be able to eliminate these natural variations.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The amendments to the Fisheries Act contain the devolution of subsection 35(2) to the provinces, and a number of individuals in the environmental community and environmental lawyers are very concerned about this. Can you comment on that?

Mr. Doubleday: I'm not able to respond in detail to that question, Mr. Chairman. I am aware that concerns have been expressed that provincial governments may not be as rigorous in enforcing the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act as the federal government has been.

We have to realize that the conservation and protection of fish habitat requires the willing cooperation of a number of people, not the least of whom are the Canadians living in the area where the fish habitat is found. We consider it appropriate that the federal government and the provinces cooperate in carrying out this function.

We are now considering some options on how to do this delegation, and I believe these concerns that the federal government retain an ability to take necessary action are entering into the consideration of these options.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What are some of those options?

Mr. Doubleday: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm not in a position to respond in detail. If the committee requires more information on this, I can arrange for a better-informed official from the department to appear. From my distance from the issue, I think all I can say is that there's more or less delegation. That's all I know about it.

.1045

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay. I think it would be useful, and certainly when our permanent chair comes back to the committee we can raise it with him. We can find out about some of these options and what it means for protection of fish habitat.

You had said earlier that the Fisheries Act takes precedence over the endangered species legislation. I wonder if we could have a clarification on that - in general, or specific sections.

Mr. Doubleday: My understanding is that if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes action under the Fisheries Act to promote the recovery of a species that's listed under the endangered species legislation, then further action under that legislation would not be necessary.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, further listing?

Mr. Doubleday: Further action.

In other words, if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closes a fishery or sets up a marine protected area, the development of a recovery plan under the endangered species act, in addition to these measures, would not be necessary.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It's my understanding that the departments are responsible for undertaking recovery plans, so I guess it could be argued that what you've just articulated would be part of a recovery plan -

Mr. Doubleday: In effect, yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: - and those come out of Bill C-65. But as far as the listing, the way it's currently laid out in the act, the decision for listing is undertaken by cabinet. It's not a decision of the Minister of Fisheries, for example.

Mr. Doubleday: Listing is a decision of the Governor in Council -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, Governor in Council.

Mr. Doubleday: - but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can take action without a listing.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Through the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Doubleday: Yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, but does that mean, then, that the Fisheries Act takes precedence over endangered species?

Mr. Doubleday: Well, that was the sense of my statement, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could take action under the Fisheries Act, which would be, in effect, a recovery plan, even though it might not be formally a recovery plan as described in the endangered species act.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Right, but if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans chose not to take action, and an aquatic species was listed through Governor in Council and there was a need to undertake recovery plans and implementation plans, then there would be a requirement on the minister to do so.

Mr. Doubleday: Yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Paul, do you have questions?

Mr. Steckle: Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Doubleday. We've met on a number of occasions.

Because the term has been used on numerous occasions, I wonder if you would clarify this. When we talk about Atlantic cod and about northern cod, are they one and the same species, or are they different species?

Mr. Doubleday: Northern cod is one of the management units for Atlantic cod. The species, which the scientists call Gadus morrhua, or Atlantic cod, is found all around the North Atlantic, from New England in the United States to the Bay of Biscay in Europe.

There are a number of reasonably self-contained biological units or stocks. In fisheries, nothing is 100%, and tagging studies over many years have shown there is some movement of cod in any one of these populations into adjacent ones, but they're largely self-contained.

.1050

In Atlantic Canada there are a number of different management units or stocks: Georges Bank; southwest Nova Scotia; eastern Nova Scotia; a small resident population in Sydney Bay; a migratory population that spends the summer in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and comes out into Sydney Bay in the winter; a migratory population in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence that comes out in the winter to the south coast of Newfoundland; a stock along the south coast of Newfoundland; a stock on the southern Grand Banks; a stock on Flemish Cap, which is just east of there; and then the northern cod, which is basically the northern half of the Grand Banks up to around Hamilton Inlet in Labrador; another management unit or stock north of there up to the top of Labrador; and then we get into Greenland waters, where there's a cod stock at west Greenland.

There are a number of distinct stocks, and the biological characteristics of the cod vary quite widely over that huge geographic area. Generally speaking, as you go towards the south and west the cod grow faster individually. They're bigger at age, their growth rates and condition are less variable than as you go to the north and east, and the stocks are more stable and also more resilient to exploitation.

As you go to the north and east the growth rates slow down, you get smaller fish, and we've observed wider variations in their condition. In some years they are in poor condition; they don't have much fat and may be suffering as a result. In other years, they grow quite well.

Mr. Steckle: Given the fact that managing a fishery resource is somewhat different from managing some of the endangered species we've been discussing over the last number of days, and as the act pertains to those kinds of species, certainly the habitat management is much easier for us to control than the habitat of some of the other species, because it's not under private ownership and we would deem or assume all waters under the 200-mile limit Canadian jurisdiction and therefore it's federal and would be under the jurisdiction. So it's much easier to control, but given the fact that would be the case, my concern is how do we deal with competing interests?

Going back a number of years, Greenpeace raised the issue of sealing. So for a number of years we basically abandoned sealing because of the pressure that was brought to bear. The human element in the depletion of cod stocks has certainly been one that we cannot ignore; it has been fundamental to the depletion. But one would have to conclude also that the seal had a big part in that as well, and still does. We have an overpopulation of seals, if I can take the numbers that are given to me. I'm not sure that anyone really knows for sure, but certainly there are more seals than we've had.

An industry was destroyed as a result of a movement of people who felt that in the interest of the seal they should protect them. We backed away from that, and at great cost to the Canadian public we have seen a cod stock and an industry almost destroyed.

How do we balance the interests of those kinds of groups that come in for some interest, not in the interest of the public purse, generally, but because someone has taken a particular interest in a species? How do we deal with that? Isn't it time that the Canadian public should have a voice in some of those matters, rather than a small group being able to control the masses?

Mr. Doubleday: First, with respect to the preamble in that question, the Fisheries Act applies in fresh water as well as salt water, and there is a question of private ownership of streams or private rights for streams.

With respect to seals, the harp seal is the most abundant seal in Atlantic Canada. It increased from about 2.5 million in 1980 to nearly 5 million in 1994. And we know from our research that harp seals consume a substantial amount of fish and other marine food. Cod is not a major element in their diet. They spend part of the year north of the area where our cod stocks are found. The big items in the diet when they're in the south are smaller species, such as capelin, arctic cod, sand lance, and shrimp. Nevertheless, because there are so many harp seals, even if each one eats only a small amount of cod it does add up. We estimate that in 1994 they consumed about 140,000 tonnes of small cod.

.1055

Typically, the harp seal eats small young cod one to three years old. Occasionally they take a larger one, but it's mainly these young age groups. To the extent that the harp seals are affecting the productivity of the cod stocks, it's by reducing the numbers of young cod that would subsequently enter the fishery rather than by reducing the number of adults.

The results of this research were made public in 1995 and were used in consultations with fisherman and environmental groups in the fall of 1995, leading to an expanded harp seal hunt. This hunt, although much larger last year than it was in the previous ten years, was still set at a level below what we call the ``replacement yield''. It was estimated that about 290,000 harp seals could be hunted without causing the population to decrease. The Canadian quota was set at 250,000, which is somewhat below that. This expanded hunt would slow down the growth of the herd but really wouldn't reduce it.

The controversy over sealing continues. It's not so much Greenpeace as the International Fund for Animal Welfare that's active in this area. Greenpeace went on to other things. As the harp seal herds have increased, they no longer consider that there is a conservation problem. But the International Fund for Animal Welfare continues to oppose the seal hunt and is quite active in some areas, particularly in the United Kingdom, raising funds and organizing opposition to it.

I don't know what more I can say. We've tried to put the facts before the world, in Europe as well as Canada, and I think we've had some success in doing so. But seals remain an emotional issue and many people are not completely objective in the views they adopt on sealing.

Mr. Steckle: I would want to go on record as not being one who has a vendetta against seals. But I think we have to be realistic about the fact that Canadian tax dollars cannot continue to subsidize an industry because we have failed to act on another aspect of it, and one where another industry could be developed. I speak in management terms, of course. I would simply implore those who make those decisions that we take regard of the fact that an industry should be revived. The numbers are there to support that. We are certainly looking at creating employment. It's an industry that I think should be developed, and at the same time we would be helping the other industry.

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, I have one last question.

Mr. Doubleday, to sum up, you have emphasized today the complementary nature of DFO and its operations and its statutory mandate and what you foresee in Bill C-65. Do you have any suggestions for a specific clause in the bill that could cause you a problem or that should be improved based on particular DFO expertise?

.1100

Mr. Doubleday: I don't want to recommend any changes in the draft bill as it's formulated. I would like to emphasize that when it comes time for the reconstituted COSEWIC to develop criteria for listing, we'd very much like to be involved in that. We are of the view that it may not be appropriate to have the same criteria for listing mammals, fish and everything else, and criteria should reflect the ecology of the species concerned.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Madam Guay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: It is okay, thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): You mentioned a couple of the reports. The Harris report was one the clerk suggested would be useful to us. I think there was a second report.

Mr. Doubleday: There was the lobster report from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Right. And there was a question by Mrs. Kraft Sloan about the options available under recovery plans.

Mr. Doubleday: For habitat delegation.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Before we leave, I have one question. You mentioned biotechnology with the whole issue of climate change. Would it be fair to say this whole endangered species exercise - recovery plans and the whole bit - could prove to be somewhat academic if we don't get our act together on climate change?

Mr. Doubleday: I think climate change is a factor in a number of species that occur in Canada. If you go through the COSEWIC listings for fish, for example, which is what I'm interested in, you'll find there are a number of species that occur mainly in the United States but they occur to a limited extent in southern Alberta, southern British Columbia, southwestern Ontario and so on.

During a warming period there's a tendency for a species to move north, and if there's a cooling period they'll move south. If that's not properly understood, we could have a situation where some species expands into Canada, is noted and counted for a number of years, retreats south again and this becomes an endangered species problem, whereas it's really a natural reflection of variations in climate.

If there's systematic climate warming, it could cause serious problems for a number of fish species, although I don't know if it would lead to extinctions in Canada. For example, in the Fraser River watershed, the summer temperatures now sometimes get pretty close to the maximum that sockeye salmon can tolerate. If it becomes a few degrees warmer, sockeye will be in trouble in the Fraser River.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Do you think that's likely to happen?

Mr. Doubleday: I won't comment on that. There are models that forecast climate warming associated with the carbon dioxide problem - the greenhouse gases. I wouldn't call them predictions at this point. But the models, which are somewhat congruent, point to a substantial warming centred around Winnipeg of perhaps six or eight Centigrade degrees in the average temperature and greatly reduced rainfall, so the lakes and potholes and sloughs in that part of the country would disappear and southern Manitoba would look like Kansas, in which case you wouldn't have any fish. At least you wouldn't have fish to the same extent you have now.

.1105

In the coastal areas it's not quite so clear, and it's not so dramatic in these models. But I wouldn't say they provide reliable predictions of what will happen.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): If you're hesitating to give us an opinion, just an opinion based on the best evidence, who in the federal government should we look to on the sockeye salmon Fraser River issue specifically?

Mr. Doubleday: The issue isn't so much how the fish would respond to the climate change, it's whether the climate change will occur. The research on climate in Canada is coordinated through the Department of Environment, by the Atmospheric Environment Service, so it might be appropriate to seek a witness from that department to talk about the likelihood of climate change and its potential impact on wildlife.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): One final question. As you sit there right now, are you an optimist about the cod stocks?

Mr. Doubleday: Yes. We've been carrying out Sentinal fisheries in the areas under moratorium for the past two or three years, and in all the areas the Sentinal fisheries are showing some signs of improvement. Generally speaking, taking the Sentinal fishery plus the research vessel surveys we do, we've concluded that the decline has ended. In all cases the condition of the cod has improved from the very poor state it was in around 1992. In most cases the growth is starting to pick up. They're growing more normally. They're not as stunted as they were in the early 1990s. In some cases we're starting to see some indications of new recruits coming in, in more like their traditional abundance, but this isn't everywhere.

Our general conclusion is that the decline has stopped but the recovery has barely begun. So we can't say the problem has been solved, but the decline has turned around, in our view.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): We've bottomed out.

Mr. Doubleday: Yes.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): I want to thank you very much for taking the time to appear before us today. We may be hearing from you again on other issues.

Mr. Doubleday: Always a pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Knutson): The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page