EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 12, 1996

.0909

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, we are dealing with Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation and extinction.

I want to welcome the members of the panel from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada who are here in front of us there this morning. Do you have a written presentation to distribute? Does everyone have a copy?

I'm Jean Payne. I'm chairing this morning in place of Mr. Caccia, who is on other business today.

Would you please introduce yourselves?

.0910

Mr. Peter Williamson (Research and Special Project Coordinator, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): My name is Peter Williamson. I'm with the Inuit Tapirisat. With me are Peter Usher and Craig Boljkovac, and we also have Karin Kettler with us as well.

First of all, we would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our submission today. ITC welcomes the introduction of a federal act concerning endangered species. We appreciate and would like to recognize the role of those agencies that played a part in its realization, such as the Canadian Wildlife Service.

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada is the national political voice of Canada's approximately 42,500 Inuit. Inuit live in 56 communities spread across the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and Labrador. ITC's board of directors comprises the presidents of the six regional Inuit organizations, as well as Pauktuutit, the Inuit women's association; the National Inuit Youth Council; and the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Approximately 30% of Canada is under Inuit stewardship. These lands include the western Arctic, as defined by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the new territory of Nunavut, Nunavik in northern Quebec, and northern Labrador.

Under the constitutionally protected land claim agreements that have been negotiated between Inuit and the federal government, Inuit co-manage wildlife throughout the entire settlement areas by means of their co-management boards. Inuit have outright surface title to approximately 20% of the Arctic north of 60, and special land rates in a substantial area of Nunavik.

Inuit have harvested wildlife sustainably for generations. Unlike what is the case for the vast majority of Canadians, wildlife for Inuit is part of our everyday life, livelihood and culture. Inuit therefore have a major critical interest in the proposed Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act, CESPA. ITC is supportive, in principle, of an act designed to protect endangered species. When protecting species, however, we would like to emphasize the the issue at the heart of the matter is simply not the protection of animals themselves. It is equally, if not more so, the protection of their habitat. Animals cannot be treated separately from their environment.

By virtue of the role Inuit play with regard to wildlife management, CESPA, in our view, has more potential to adversely affect the rights and interests of Inuit than most other Canadians. We would like to note that key species that have become endangered in the north have become so due to the activities of others.

Our chief concerns with the proposed act are, first, that there is inadequate recognition in the act of Inuit harvesting and management rights, and inadequate recognition of the institutions that Inuit have created, through land claims, for the management of wildlife; second, that there is not a proper balance between the protection of individual animals and their habitat; and third, that there could be misuse of the act by those who are opposed to Inuit interests.

The claims deal with a broad range of issues, including wildlife management, environment and habitat protection. The co-management parties, which were created by the land claim agreements, reflect the integrated approach that Inuit take to these issues. There are co-management parties concerning land use, water, wildlife management, and impact assessment. We are also submitting an ITC submission to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, concerning co-management and land claims.

The structures that have been created to govern Inuit wildlife harvesting and environmental management are consistent with, and indeed subject to, the principles of conservation and sustainable use. The existence of these bodies, the vast area that their decisions affect, and the constitutional recognition of Inuit right to harvest and manage the Arctic ecosystem, make it imperative that we be fully involved in any regulatory process that could affect us. Inuit feel their law requires that these bodies are more than consultative in nature. We have and will therefore make specific suggestions with that principle in mind.

.0915

The purpose of an act concerning endangered species should not be to designate and maintain a long list of species, but to ultimately de-list as many species as possible. This would not only be a sign of a healthy environment, but would also provide incentives and rewards for the successful implementation of a well-designed recovery plan.

The real responsibility for design and implementation in cases affecting Inuit will chiefly be at the regional level, including the wildlife management boards, regional wildlife managers and, most importantly, the harvesters themselves. CESPA should be reflective of the objectives outlined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada subscribes: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the equitable sharing of benefits.

Inuit are also concerned that this proposed act could be used against the principles of sustainable use. Inuit livelihoods have been undermined by the activities of various animal rights groups. Most notably, the collapse of an industry vital to Inuit - sealing - resulted not from a species being taken by Inuit in a manner that threatened its survival in any way, but from a concerted campaign designed to prevent sustainable harvesting. We are concerned that this proposed act may be used as an instrument by such organizations to further harm our legitimate interests and our constitutionally protected rights.

At a recent world conservation congress of the International Union for Conservation and Nature - the world's leading conservation organization - a high-profile animal rights group, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, was denied membership on the grounds that its activities were not consistent with the principles of conservation and sustainable use. We do not want such groups to be given the tools in the form of domestic conservation legislation.

With the changes that we will outline, we feel that the proposed CESPA could meet Inuit concerns and become a workable instrument for the conservation of wildlife in Canada.

Peter.

Dr. Peter J. Usher (Research Director, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): We'd like to run through some specific suggestions that we have regarding the act. First of all, with respect to the preamble, we're aware that you have received a submission from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board on this subject. We would support their recommendation that language be added to paragraph 9 of the preamble to recognize explicitly the jurisdiction of wildlife management boards set up under the Inuit claims.

There is a non-derogation clause in the bill as it is presently written. We applaud that, but we would also point out that the inclusion of a non-derogation clause is not sufficient to ensure the protection of harvesting and management rights under the claims, which we would remind you are paramount to all federal legislation, including this bill. The reason we say this is that people who are charged with the administration and enforcement of an act don't always look at the preamble. They often look at the substance of the act, and unless certain key things are in the substance, they forget about these things. The non-derogation clause, of course, is something that helps you if you have to deal with these things in a courtroom setting. Hopefully we don't get to that, and the better way to do that is to ensure that things are clearly expressed in the bill with respect to Inuit entitlements.

We're also concerned that the management boards that have been established under the Inuit claims are referred to only in a couple of places, and they are referred to explicitly as having only a consultative role. We don't believe that was what was intended by the establishment of these management boards, which, if you look at the appropriate sections of the land claims, are instruments to guide the management of wildlife in their respective territories. Consequently, if these are relegated to a consultative status, what was achieved through land claims - the co-management of wildlife and lands throughout the territory between Inuit and governments - becomes relegated, in a sense, to where these only have a consultative status. In our opinion that's not only an incorrect reading of the claims agreements, which are, after all, constitutionally protected, but it's directly contrary to those provisions.

.0920

So we believe the management boards have to be involved in every phase of the operation of this bill, including the designation of species, the prohibitions, and the development and implementation of recovery plans in particular.

We have some other concerns about the characterization of Inuit rights in the bill.

We're also concerned about some elements in the prohibitions in clause 31 of the bill. The emphasis in those prohibitions is very much on harassment and killing of individual animals and the trade in and possession of animals. Then there's a reference to the destruction of the ``residence'' of these animals; in other words, something like a bear den or a nest or something very specific like that.

We do not consider this to be a modern or contemporary approach to wildlife management, because it gives an undue focus to the matters of capture, possession, and trade and insufficient attention to the protection of a species' habitat. We think there has to be a better balance there.

We think the prohibition clause should be changed in order to recognize explicitly the rights of Inuit to the sustainable use of living resources. So if provisions for harvesting are included under a recovery plan for an endangered or threatened species, the bill should not contain any provisions precluding the full use of individuals of a species being harvested. That would include the sale of such products or derivatives to non-Inuit if in fact that is allowed for in the recovery plan.

There are many cases where sustainable use of living resources by resource users works best with economic incentives to ensure a species' survival. It actually leads to the protection of vital habitat of species. In addition, certain species are of vital cultural importance to Inuit.

We would therefore suggest the general exemption outlined in paragraph 36(1)(b) be expanded to exempt explicitly the recipients, including non-aboriginal recipients, of the products or derivatives of the sustainable use of living resources as provided for under recovery plans from the prohibition clause. This could be done by adding to subclauses 31(1) and 31(2) the following:

Subject to subsection 36(1), no person shall

and then continue from there.

Again, we note that clause 32 limits the destruction of habitat as though it were a matter of residence of the animal only. We think it doesn't make ecological sense, and that clause should be expanded to include the notion of critical habitat. In other words, whatever presumably COSEWIC or the recovery plan would designate as the area necessary for a species' survival would all be protected under clause 32.

On the need for further explicit exemptions, under subclause 36(4), concerning exemptions from the possession of an individual of an endangered or threatened listed species, we would propose that a new subclause be added explicitly including aboriginal people or claims beneficiaries. While the non-derogation paragraph 36(1)(b) of the bill provides such protection, this addition would provide greater clarity to policy-makers and those assigned to enforce the bill. We've suggested some wording under a new paragraph 36(4)(e) that would state:

(e) they acquired that individual part or derivative as a result of activities in accordance with regulatory or conservation measures for wildlife species under an aboriginal treaty, land claims agreement, self-government agreement or co-management agreement that deals with wildlife species.

Recovery plans: We are concerned, as mentioned before, that the clause calling for ``consultation'' with wildlife management boards does not adequately address the need for the boards to cooperate in the development of a plan. Under the claims agreements, the boards take a much more active role in providing recommendations to responsible ministers and, in fact, are decision-making bodies on key elements such as total allowable harvest, needs levels and so on. That cannot be undermined by anything in this bill. So those boards have to play a front and centre role in the development of a recovery plan.

.0925

Therefore, we would recommend that a new paragraph be added to subclause 38(2). It says:

To the extent possible, the recovery plan must be prepared in cooperation with

and then there's a list of groups. We would add to that:

(c) any wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal claims legislation and is affected by the plan.

We would also propose under clause 62 that a new paragraph be added explicitly exempting from endangered species protection actions activities such as those authorized under paragraph 36(1)(b). That addition, in our view, would allow for greater clarity for those charged with enforcing the act.

There is a clause in the bill, clause 19, that deals with applications under the act. It specifies that any person, or presumably group, can apply to COSEWIC to request that a species be designated or reclassified or that the designation be revoked. We are concerned that animal rights organizations could seek designations that are based not on sound ecological principles or traditional knowledge, but on the philosophy that no wild animal should ever be harvested. A flood of those requests could impose significant cost burdens on both the limited resources allocated to COSEWIC for its own work and on those of our own organizations, which would have to respond to those applications.

We are concerned that the bill authorizes COSEWIC to rely solely upon a status report on a species that is provided by the individual asking for designation. We believe COSEWIC should rely on the best possible sources of scientific and traditional knowledge and should, if necessary, go outside its own membership for a balance of fully informed opinions. Further, COSEWIC should notify the appropriate wildlife co-management body immediately upon receiving an application for designation of a species with all or part of its range in the Arctic.

So we would recommend that the following be added to subclause 19(1):

No person shall make a request that is frivolous and vexatious. Such requests shall be subject to the imposition of cost recovery

which I believe is provided for under clause 99 or 100.

We would also recommend that the bill specify in subclause 20(1) that COSEWIC seek a balance of opinions, and in addition, that all applications that COSEWIC receives concerning species whose range includes the Arctic...should immediately notify the appropriate wildlife co-management body.

With respect to representation on COSEWIC, which is clause 14, we recognize the philosophy that would allow a minister some discretion in using regional criteria when deciding on membership. We feel that because the proposed act as presently drafted applies more to the Arctic than to the other regions of Canada, a minimum of two members should either be from those regions or have proven knowledge and experience of Arctic issues.

So we recommend that it be stated that notwithstanding subclause 14(2), there should be a minimum of two COSEWIC members who are knowledgeable of Arctic wildlife on the basis of expertise specified in subclause 14(1). That expertise, I would remind you, is either scientific expertise or local and traditional knowledge.

There is also the question of rolling over into CESPA the current COSEWIC list. We've been advised that there is a possibility that the current list would simply be rolled over into the regulations under the act.

A number of species currently on the COSEWIC list are quite controversial as far as Inuit are concerned, and these species are currently under study by the wildlife management boards. For example, there is an Inuit bowhead knowledge study currently under way under the Nunavut Final Agreement. The results of that study will be instrumental in the board's subsequent allocations of bowhead whales.

.0930

What we don't want to see is a situation where the federal government takes over authority for species that through designation, through a long period of negotiation, were put into the hands of the wildlife management boards, on which Inuit as well as federal government representatives are there in order to discuss these matters. We believe the boards are the proper place to deliberate these things rather than having a list that is controversial in some cases, simply rolled over into regulations.

The recommendation, therefore, is that the committee request that a comprehensive review of the species on the current COSEWIC list be completed, with Inuit participation, before their incorporation into the act or regulations.

With respect to changes to listing, clause 30(2) calls for giving notice of intent to amend the list under the proposed act. We noted in last year's legislative proposals that the Governor in Council also had to provide reasons why such amendments were to be made. We feel that would add to the transparency of the listing and de-listing process, and we would recommend that a phrase be added, ``and give reasons,'' to clause 30(2) as was originally outlined in the earlier proposal.

With respect to project review, we're pleased to note the notification requirements set out in clause 49, more specifically, an authority whose project is required to have an environmental assessment under the CEAA.

Under the claims, there are also impact review boards that operate in parallel to the boards formed under the CEAA, and we recommend that language that recognizes this parallel role of those Inuit impact review boards be included in clause 49.

Mr. Williamson: The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada is supportive of legislation to protect endangered species. We're concerned, however, that this legislation could be subject to animal rights groups who use this type of instrument.

We have stewardship of practically one-third of Canada, and we have signed land claim agreements with the federal government on a vast area of Canada. In exchange for that, we have guaranteed co-management of wildlife, and so our concerns should be taken very seriously.

In Europe we have seen endangered species legislation used to abuse the Inuit rights to harvesting. Recently the Netherlands have listed in their endangered species legislation fur-bearing animals, saying that these animals are endangered. As you know, there has been a fight between Canada and the European Union for the last number of years trying to save the fur trade. By listing these animals in the domestic legislation in the Netherlands, they have banned the import of these furs into the Netherlands.

Also with the European Union overall, they have cited CITES, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, along the same lines.

So we are very concerned that any legislation in Canada should not be subject to the same kind of abuse by these animal rights groups. In order for us to ensure that this does not happen, we need to have the rights that we have negotiated under our land claims, which are constitutionally protected, to be given the same status in subordinate legislation like this bill. Our legislation is constitutionally protected, and we need to have our same rights constitutionally protected in this bill as well.

.0935

In the regulatory process, we also need to be consulted, and the scientific and indigenous knowledge that is necessary to list and de-list species also needs to be included in this process.

So as we said, we are supportive of this legislation, but we have concerns and we want our concerns to be given full consideration during your hearings. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you for coming today.

I'll be very brief. I want to look at page 6 of your submission. You make a recommendation at the bottom of the page that:

No person shall make a request that is frivolous and vexatious. Such requests shall be subject to the imposition of cost recovery

I would like to know or perhaps you could expand a little bit about the right to harvest versus the right to have a species survive. You seemed to outline the situation that those are in opposition.

Perhaps also you could give some specific examples, especially in the Canadian context, if you can, of where the efforts of animal rights groups result in a perverse effect for species.

So give me a further example of the animal rights groups, and also discuss a little bit this problem you're raising about the right to harvest versus the right to have a species survive.

Mr. Williamson: A few months ago, one of the animal rights groups in Canada, called Bear Watch, had an article in The Globe and Mail that said there is an international conservation convention that prohibits the trade of polar bear gall bladders. This isn't true. There is no prohibition in the trade of polar bear gall bladders.

Inuit management of wildlife, including polar bears, is very well managed and we are very critical in assessing the population of all species. When an organization goes out and says that Inuit are doing illegal activities, this is the kind of misleading information we are talking about when we say that we are very susceptible to animal rights groups.

Dr. Usher: Perhaps I could add to that a bit.

In the history of animal rights groups operating both nationally and especially internationally, they have gone to every conceivable legislative body to try to ensure the passage of regulations and acts that in our opinion are not based on science and not based on any local knowledge. The U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act is a pretty good example; the European fur ban is a pretty good example; and if they are given tools in domestic legislation to do these things, we will start seeing this kind of thing in Canada.

You asked another question that suggested there might be an opposition between harvesting and species survival. I think Inuit actually don't see it that way. If you look at the land claims, the way the provisions of the land claims are structured, the conservation of wildlife is intimately tied to the harvesting regime. You don't have one without the other. It's the philosophy of the claims agreements that those are not in fact in opposition, and if managed properly, you can harvest and you ensure species survival. So we don't think it's a proper way of looking at it to set these up as opposites.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We enjoyed your presentation this morning, Mr. Williamson, Mr. Usher, and Mr. Boljkovac.

I'm a little concerned. I understand your concern that you be more than used as a consultative process, that you actually take part in the decision-making. You have been involved, I understand, in co-management with federal government in certain avenues.

I am not too clear at the moment if Bill C-65 deals mainly with the oceans and the federal lands.

Mr. Usher, I take it that you are the legal representative here this morning.

Dr. Usher: I'm not a lawyer.

.0940

Mrs. Jennings: Oh. It sounded as though you were perhaps going along that avenue.

How does the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada see the new territory of Nunavut? Do you see it as beyond the federal jurisdiction or do you see yourselves as being similar to the Yukon, where you're still involved with federal jurisdiction but you have local powers? Just how do you see yourself in this bill legally? How do you see the impact?

Dr. Usher: Our understanding is that the Nunavut territory will be a territory with the same rights and powers as the Northwest Territories or the Yukon territory, although that may evolve over time, in terms of devolution of powers over lands and resources and so on.

With respect to oceans management, for example, that is a federal responsibility, although the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board has a role in the offshore area, which is laid out in the land claims agreements. In that case half of the representatives are Inuit and half are appointed by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So that's the co-management element we would have, as it were. Of course, the territory itself only goes to the water's edge, but through the co-management agreements the jurisdiction of Inuit would extend to the offshore area.

Mrs. Jennings: So you see yourselves not so much with the north of 60 explanation in the bill and more with the land agreements and the native land settlements and things like that. That is uppermost in all your arguments.

Mr. Williamson: Exactly. Nunavut is particular because a new territory is being established, but the presentation we made here today is regarding land claims.

With the establishment of the Nunavut territory, there are two changes that come to my mind, and they're very similar. One is that with the Nunavut territory, the legislative assembly would most likely be comprised of a majority of Inuit, since there's a majority of Inuit in the territory. It will be a public government, but the majority of the members of the legislation will be Inuit.

Because of the structure of the co-management boards, there is representation from Inuit, from the territorial government, and from the federal government. With the establishment of the Nunavut territory, the Nunavut territory will take over the role of the Northwest Territories' government right now. So in that respect, Inuit will have a greater role in the co-management board.

Secondly, concerning territorial legislation respecting wildlife management, the Inuit will have more control over the legislation at the territorial level as well.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to raise the issue of the rolling over of the current COSEWIC list to the COSEWIC list under the new legislation. When I first looked at that, I thought that was a fairly innocuous thing to do. I can't say for certain, but I think yours is the first group to raise it. I just wondered if you could give us some specific examples of some of the listings that are controversial, a particular animal or plant species that's at the top of the list of controversy.

Dr. Usher: I guess I would refer you to marine mammals under the list of fish. There are several populations of beluga and the eastern Arctic and western Arctic populations of the bowhead whale that are far from being endangered. We're not sure where that comes from, because the International Whaling Commission allows the Inuit of Alaska to take about 40 or 50 animals a year. If that's the case in Alaska, how can they possibly be endangered in Canada, which takes one or two a year?

Mr. Knutson: What does COSEWIC say when you ask them that question?

Mr. Craig Boljkovac (Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): We haven't put that question to them. The bowhead was listed on that COSEWIC list in 1980. There's supposed to be a review every 10 years of the candidates on the list and that has yet to happen with the bowhead. So COSEWIC has a lot of catching up to do in its review of the animal and plant species that are supposed to be on that list.

.0945

Mr. Knutson: It sounds like a pretty good argument to me. What would be number two?

Dr. Usher: Number two?

Mr. Knutson: After the whale, what would be another example? I'm just trying to get a sense of....

Dr. Usher: I guess what should be said is that when you look at the list, two beluga populations in the Arctic and two bowhead populations in the Arctic, that represents a lot of food for people up there, for everywhere.

As for other ones, well, Peary caribou, both the Banks Island and high Arctic populations.... It's not that we don't agree there's a problem there, but the management boards are actively carrying out their own plans for dealing with this situation. Our concern is that by taking a listing that may in fact be quite old, not the most up-to-date listing, and simply imposing that on a situation where we have management boards and local authorities actively considering these problems on a day-to-day basis is an inappropriate way to do this.

Mr. Knutson: I think it also speaks to the issue that COSEWIC is perhaps under-resourced. That's what we're hearing. It's quite dramatic. It's done on an volunteer or quasi-volunteer basis. This is an example where they should be given the proper resources to update their lists appropriately.

Dr. Usher: I would also point out that when the wildlife management boards deal with these, for example if you look at the provisions for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board, if a total allowable harvest is going to be imposed on any species, the board actually has the right to conduct, and probably would conduct, public hearings within the territory on that. Those are considered very important restrictions on Inuit harvesting. Although the claims clearly contemplate that such restrictions can be put in place, because conservation is the overriding principle in the claims, the process by which that is done is one of very thorough consultation and consideration, and to substitute what is potentially a rather old status report on a COSEWIC list for that process in our view is completely inappropriate.

Mr. Knutson: I agree with you.

I wonder if you could talk a little about the polar bear. You mentioned the example of gall bladders. From your point of view is it threatened, endangered?

Mr. Williamson: The point of view Inuit take on this is that there is a quota system, and because there are a limited number of polar bears in the Arctic, although there is control, still we should be able to trade polar bear hides, and we trade polar bear meat amongst ourselves, and for those parts of the animal that would bring economic value to us we should be able to trade. There are no restrictions on our doing that, but by animal rights groups saying there are restrictions on our doing that it is misleading information. What they are trying to do is to change public opinion so a lot more protection will be given than is necessary.

Mr. Knutson: I understand that. I think that was your main point, and I understand that. I wanted to get at the point of how you maintain control - maybe I'm off base here - of 42,000 people spread over 30% of the country. How do you accomplish that?

Dr. Usher: Perhaps I can comment on that for polar bears. In the Northwest Territories a system of quotas has been in place for thirty years by next spring, and the quota is, if I remember correctly, about 500-odd animals. This quota is controlled by a system of tags. So each community gets an allocation of polar bear tags, depending on the status of the population in the local area, and those numbers are adjusted from time to time based on biological and local information.

.0950

Once those tags are allocated, the community can decide for itself whether it wants an individual hunter to capture that bear for his own purposes, use the meat at home and sell the skin himself, or whether the community would like to have an organized sport hunt.

Let's suppose a community gets 10 tags. It can use those tags in any way it wants. It can use them for personal use or for sport hunting - it can decide. It doesn't matter to the polar bear what it gets used for.

For many of these small communities the amount of money that's brought in from sport hunting is a very significant contribution to the local economy, so we're not just talking about subsistence here, we're talking about cash going into the communities.

Once that bear is captured, in our view, the more money people can make from it, the better. It can only be taken under a legal authorization. There has to be a tag on that skin for it to be exported from the territories or processed by a tannery. Once that legal taking has occurred, in our opinion, people should get the maximum economic benefit from it.

If the experience of the last 30 years is anything to go by, we had a situation where a quota system was imposed. It's one of the exceptional situations in the Arctic. Obviously it has worked very well, because that quota has not gone down over time and the population is considered to be stable. You will notice it is listed only as a vulnerable species and has no higher listing than that on the current list.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Mr. Steckle, then Mrs. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Adams.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Mr. Knutson has alluded to one of the questions I had. I quite concur with your thoughts in terms of realizing the maximum value out of the species for all body parts. Once the animal has been taken, maximum value should be realized.

I think there are many myths that need to be addressed, but I wanted to compliment you on putting forward your concerns in such detail. I think it's going to be helpful for this committee to realize some of the concerns you have and be able to deal with them.

On the issue on page 2 where you list your three main concerns, you talk about the inadequate recognition in the bill of Inuit harvesting and management rights, and then you go on to talk about the institutions you have which may not be recognized in this bill. How can we accommodate you in this bill, and can there be two levels of jurisdiction? Can we be complementary and helpful to each other?

On the third issue, in your opinion there could be misuse of the act by those who are opposed to Inuit interests. I'd like you to expand on that.

On my first question, how can we work together so we can have maximum cooperation? The ultimate goal is for us to protect the species so it can be here into perpetuity, for the good of all.

Dr. Usher: We think the co-management arrangements that have been established under the claims are designed to do exactly that. Our concern is that, perhaps without realizing it, Parliament could pass legislation that would upset that arrangement, and it would ultimately have to be challenged. In our view it would be challenged successfully, so the better course is not to have to engage in that process. Surely the better course is for Parliament to recognize the role and responsibilities of the management boards and simply include them and recognize them in the ways we have suggested in our recommendations for specific amendments.

I don't know if that answers your question.

Mr. Steckle: No, but I'd like a response to my second question.

Mr. Williamson: The possible misuses of the act by animals rights groups could have a broad range. Animal rights groups that are against the fur trade could try to get species of fur-bearing animals listed in the act so these animals could not be trapped. Other groups, such as Bear Watch, might try to get the bears listed in the act. It has been successful in a number of provinces in banning the trade of gall bladders. I'm not really sure which ones they are, but I know they've been successful in a few provinces.

.0955

We could also see a public campaign by the animal rights groups saying Canada now has an endangered species act and certain species should be listed. They could try to get public support to list any species they feel particularly close to, or that look nice in pictures, like fur-bearing animals.

I think the listing of species and also trying to get public opinion would even put pressure on industry. If they weren't successful in getting species listed, they could try to hit different industries and use the act as a vehicle to do that.

I think we need to see something in the act that talks about sustainable use. Maybe, Peter, you could speak to that a bit.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Adams has to leave in a little while and he wanted to ask a question. I wonder if we could allow that question.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, but I have to go to the House of Commons.

I think the positive approach of the ITC to this legislation is very important. Given the nature of federal jurisdiction and the location of your areas of interest in northern Quebec and Labrador, and in Nunavut and the Western Arctic, it's become very critical to us, so we really appreciate that.

I notice in your brief you make the point that the object of the exercise is to get a species de-listed once it's listed. Of course, the other object is to stop species from getting on the list in the first place.

In other areas, we're often faced with the situation where a landowner discovers that on his or her property there's an endangered species of plant or animal and he or she is faced with the cost of what to do, and so on. By the way, I think the board has tremendous scope in the preventive side of this exercise. But how would you see that operating?

So here is the case. Somewhere in Inuit territory there is this absolutely endangered species - this is the case that's often put to us - so what would the Inuit do? What would the boards do in that situation?

Dr. Usher: I will refer specifically to the arrangements for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board. There are provisions for the establishment of a total allowable harvest. Most species do not have an established number attached to them. If there were any concern on the part of wildlife managers anywhere in Nunavut that there was a problem with a species, the board would be invited to consider imposing a total allowable harvest. As I mentioned, a hearings process would deal with that and would rely on whatever expert and local opinion was as necessary.

In effect, the board would be creating a management and recovery plan because it would be dealing primarily with the issue of harvest. In other words, total allowable harvest simply means quota, if you like. It means that for the first time we will have to establish a quota on something rather than relying on such other traditional means as possession limits, gear limits, seasons, or those kinds of things that are usually relied upon.

Mr. Adams: Can you imagine the quota being a ban?

Dr. Usher: It is possible. Let's put it this way: a total allowable harvest could be zero. That's not precluded under the claims.

Mr. Adams: A number of witnesses have mentioned, as you did earlier, the Peary caribou on Banks Island. Would you care to comment on the present situation on Banks Island and the condition of the Peary caribou population?

.1000

Dr. Usher: I must admit that I don't have a very up-to-date view. Mine is a rather old one. But what I can tell you, which is more up to date, is that in recent years, through the actions of the wildlife management advisory committee in the NWT, which is the Inuvialuit institution, a voluntary limit has been put on the caribou. The hunters now take only one caribou a year in a community where caribou meat is the favourite. That's what people normally eat. And believe me, one caribou a year is a very significant limitation on a family that would normally eat ten or twenty.

And this has been done entirely through local deliberations, through the co-management bodies. I think this is a successful example of a voluntary self-limitation and a conservation action. When everybody is on side in a management system rather than having a Draconian authority from Ottawa coming and telling people what they shall or shall not do, it really works, and I think we're seeing it here.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan, thank you for your patience.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): We've had a change in the membership of the committee over the years, but some of the members of this committee have had the opportunity to travel to the north. I think our travels there have helped us to understand how important traditional lifestyles are for the health and well-being of the people of the north, especially the Inuit. So I appreciate what you've been able to put forward to us today, and it's very important to have it on the record.

My question has to do with critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined in the bill. One of your recommendations is to include critical habitat or change the wording from ``residence''. Is the definition in the bill sufficient for the purposes that you intend, or are there other ways you would like to approach habitat more effectively?

Mr. Williamson: Critical habitat is something that is really essential. Habitat needs to be protected. I think for the purposes of the definition it's fine. I think too, though, that when we're talking about management of wildlife and the environment a holistic approach needs to be taken. This is the approach that the Inuit have taken through our land claims negotiations. We have established a number of different co-management boards that deal with wildlife, environmental protection, environmental assessment and water.

I don't think that what you have in this legislation is wrong. It's quite right. But when the government goes about dealing with endangered species, there are a number of other acts and pieces of legislation it would also have to refer to.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

If there are no more questions for the panel, I would like to thank them for their appearance here today. We hope that your concerns will somehow be reflected in the final bill.

.1005

Two groups will be appearing next. They are the Forest Sector Advisory Council and l'Association des industries forestières du Québec.

I believe you both have presentations. We will hear first from the Forest Sector Advisory Council, if you would be good enough to introduce yourselves.

Mr. Jack Munro (Forest Sector Advisory Council): Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm the past co-chair of FSAC. The co-chair was unable to be here today and I'm filling in as the spokesman. Claude Plamondon is a member of FSAC from the Province of Quebec. Phillip Legg is also a member of FSAC from the IWA, which is a woodworkers' union, and he will be with us today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Our brief is being passed around to all of you. And working from the belief that most parliamentary committee members and their helpers can read, I'm not going to read our brief. I know you'll stay up late at night and study each and every word of it.

I have a bit of a summary, and Claude and Phillip will also join in. An event that just happened the night before last when the Prime Minister had his town hall meeting...I'm not going to judge the meeting, but I think it's important for all of us to really understand what happened. What was portrayed to me vividly as far as the mood of Canadians is concerned...in my words, I would sum it up by saying Canadians are very nervous and very grumpy. We don't feel good about vague promises. We feel quite vulnerable about jobs and the local economy.

I'm sure each and every member of the committee understands the seriousness of the legislation that we're talking about today. I believe the legislation will only work if it has broad public support, and in order to have broad public support I think it's most important that we understand the public's mood.

I understand that your committee will be travelling, that you were slated for Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, but coming back...I really want to encourage that. I think the people who will be affected by or who will have to live with this legislation are entitled to their input prior to the legislation being passed in the House of Commons.

It seems to me that travelling means considerably more than just going to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Toronto. I think people who live in rural Canada are very supportive of the legislation, as we've just heard from the position of the Inuit. People in rural Canada understand what goes on out there. Nobody is interested in destroying anything. These are the people who have developed a system on their own for preserving and protecting whatever the species happens to be, a system for keeping it from extinction.

I think it's most important to get out into rural Canada. I come from Vancouver myself and am primarily connected with the forest industry, and let me say that there are some pretty goofy goddamned ideas that come out of downtown Vancouver that don't have a lot to do with the realities of what happens out where the people who built this country are continuing to work. I think it's most important that you travel outside of the four or five major centres.

I would also suggest very seriously that while you're on the west coast you take a trip down the northwest coast of the United States, particularly to the States of Washington and Oregon. It's not far from Vancouver. Sweet Home, Oregon, and many of those communities along the west coast have been completely destroyed as communities as a result of exactly the same legislation we're talking about in Canada.

.1010

I don't think it's far; it's a couple of hundred miles. See what happens to communities when legislation is drafted rather loosely, giving people a vehicle to do things other than what the legislation was intended to do. That's why we're really concerned.

The FSAC, Forest Sector Advisory Council, is an advisory council to ministers on forestry issues. We've been in existence for a very long time as far as forest issues are concerned. I must say that FSAC supports the objectives of this legislation, but we have some very serious concerns about it. We support and believe that the government did the right thing as far as its commitment from five years ago is concerned.

I'm a bit resentful that this legislation is being tacked onto the back end of a mandate that was first talked about in Rio in 1992. Honestly, while we support the legislation, I do not believe this committee, or this Parliament, has enough time to allow concerned Canadians to have input into this legislation before you adjourn and go into another election. Once again, I resent the fact that it's tied to the back end of a mandate, even though there is a commitment from Canada for us to proceed with this type of legislation.

As for the seriousness of it, once again, travel a couple of hundred miles out of Vancouver. You'll see town after town after town that's boarded up and shut down because people misuse this type of legislation. I think it really is most important.

Once again, I want to reiterate that we do support the legislation, but we're really concerned about the seriousness of it. We recognize that the federal government - all federal politicians, actually - have a role in the area. So we want you to be aware of what is really in place.

Our brief is national in scope, but I'm more familiar with the British Columbia side. I'll talk a bit about British Columbia. I think it's important for all members of the committee and their staff to understand what's really going on in some places.

In British Columbia we have no specific endangered species law, but have taken major steps to protect biodiversity. We have the Forest Practices Code and the protected areas strategy.

Certainly the majority of us in Canada have bought into the fact that we should work toward preserving 12% of our land base. In British Columbia I think we're ahead of a lot of other areas. This is in excess of 9% in the province now. With the parks that we had previously and the ones set aside in protected areas that now exist, we're talking about more then 8 million hectares already protected. That's a pretty fair piece of real estate.

To put it in some perspective, I want to relate it to the United States. Take British Columbia alone; never mind the rest of the provinces. Take all the federal and state parks in the following states and put them together: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. We have today in British Columbia more area protected than in all those states combined. In other words, in British Columbia alone, at just over 9%, we have more park land than that of all parks combined - national, state or whatever - from every state west of the Mississippi. When we reach 12%, we will have more than that of the entire lower 48 states. So we have to keep some of this in mind.

Once again, I must say that we support the initiatives, but they certainly create big challenges for resource sectors.

Consider coastal B.C. logging costs in view of some of the legislation we've passed. This was necessary and good legislation in British Columbia in the last five or six years, but the costs as far as logging is concerned are double in British Columbia what they are in Ontario and Quebec.

.1015

The major companies are not in particularly good shape. We've had three major shutdowns. Entire companies didn't shut down, but there were three pretty significant shutdowns in the last couple of months in B.C. I think it makes it pretty clear that the government must move cautiously with regulations.

As for the U.S. experience, I'm not a particular fan of the United States or the politics down there, but I like the working people down there. They've been through this experience, so I have to talk a little bit about the U.S.

That experience shows that the endangered species legislation can have a major impact on resource industries. The forest sector in the Pacific northwest was especially hard hit by the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California, a third of all the operating mills in those four states were shut down between 1990 and 1993. There were 14,675 manufacturing jobs lost because of the legislation that this committee is charged with bringing in.

That's the manufacturing sector. That does not include the loggers who supplied those 14,000 people with raw material or spin-off jobs. It's about two to one or something like that in British Columbia. We're talking about an awful lot of people who were put out of work because legislation such as what we're talking about in Canada was primarily misused.

We need a bill that will protect endangered species without producing that level of job loss - that's a massive job loss - otherwise the bill won't have the broad support, especially in rural areas, it needs to be effective.

I want to talk about two major problems with the bill that make it impossible to support in its current form. First of all, there's the impact. The bill is too broad in scope and doesn't pay enough attention to social and economic impacts.

A number of definitions are too broad. The FSAC brief refers to a couple of examples in which residents should be defined more carefully and limited to active residents. The term, ``geographically distinct population'', whatever in heaven's name that is, should be removed from the definition of wildlife species. These and other definitions have to be worded more carefully. If not, the bill will expand beyond the scope that's needed to achieve its objective.

More importantly, the bill needs to pay much more attention to the impact of recovery plans on communities and individuals. Resource communities that rely on their land base are especially vulnerable.

There are very limited references in the bill to any assessment of the cost of recovery plans. There's no specific requirement for social and economic impact assessments. Assessments should be carried out with local consultation before plans are implemented.

In many parts of Canada, including British Columbia, we have much more local consultation than we've had in the past. We had a core process in British Columbia that talked about land use that basically failed. It was a good idea, but one side of the table was not prepared to compromise, so there wasn't much accomplished out of it.

Out of that idea came resource management planning committees in the local community. They're really working. They're doing very well. They have saved a lot of operations that would have been shut down by initial core recommendations. Local resource management committees, in other words local inputs from communities and individuals, are certainly most important.

There's little reference in the bill to any assessment of the cost of the recovery plans. The assessment should be carried out before plans are implemented with local consultations. The bill should state that recovery plans may be revised in light of these impact assessments. The bill should provide for compensation for communities and people, including workers who are significantly and directly affected by recovery plans.

Maintaining biodiversity is a national objective, and economically vulnerable resource communities shouldn't be asked to pay most of the cost without some form of compensation. It won't work if you don't have the real people involved.

As far as the procedures are concerned, the bill should establish procedures, including careful scientific analyses, consultations with affected communities and assessments of social and economic impacts. It should only be possible to avoid those procedures in extraordinary circumstances. The current bill provides too much opportunity for emergency actions outside the usual procedures and time lines. Though there are guidelines, there are not enough guidelines to show when the minister can make emergency orders under subclause 34(2), for example.

.1020

The right to sue, the endangered species protection action, causes us even more concern. We firmly believe that forest policy and the things related to forest policy rightfully belong with the forest minister and the government of the day.

With this bill giving the courts the powers it does - this is exactly what happened in the United States through litigation - greater uncertainty is created along with less accountability for stakeholders. It uses up government resources, leaving fewer resources to help species that have been identified as a high priority.

It also allows groups with other agendas to use endangered species as a tool to accomplish what their real objective is. In many parts of Canada, the real objective is to shut down the forest industry. I might say that the forest industry - it's in our brief, and I'm sure everybody understands it - is the most significant industry as far as Canada is concerned. It employs in excess of a million people.

I think our exports last year were something like $35 billion. We bought back about $6 billion worth of product. There is no question that it's the most significant industry in Canada. It's not recognized as such in most places, but I'm sure that you, as politicians, do recognize it. It's certainly the most vulnerable one, I believe, in the forested part of Canada as far as this legislation is concerned.

Endangered species litigation in the United States has cost millions and millions of dollars. They have a circuit court judge travelling around. If you're able to convince this judge that you should lose this working forest, you lose it. You are in court for years trying to get it back, whether or not the loss was legitimate.

The U.S. environmentalists have called the spotted owl a surrogate for old growth protection. The senior officer of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Andy Stahl - this is a quote from him - says that the spotted owl is a surrogate for old growth protection. They went further to say thank goodness for the spotted owl. They said that if they hadn't had discovered the spotted owl, they would have had to invent something else.

I don't think the spotted owl was ever in danger in the United States. We don't hear enough stories about the spotted owl not needing old growth to survive, only that it's nesting in billboards, on the top of steel logging spars, logging equipment that wasn't used, and the rest of it. And there's hunting in the areas that have been logged.

This was a great scam that caused many people their marriages, lives, homes, houses and everything else. We got into the courts and allowed judges to take working forests away from the workers. They dealt with the spotted owl mainly through the courts. In the early 1990s, more than 20 major spotted owl lawsuits were ongoing, affecting huge amounts of land. One proposal in the Pacific northwest - this was under similar legislation to what we're talking about in Canada - from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined 11.6 million acres in three states as a critical habitat that should be taken away from the forest industry.

The results of the litigation related to spotted owls has probably been the largest single contributor to the loss and economic despair that exists in the Pacific northwest of the United States.

Here are my closing comments.

The forest sector is already investing heavily in protecting biodiversity. As I said, we have over 8 million hectares in British Columbia now set aside. We welcome the opportunity to work with the federal government on this new initiative. We would like to get more involved.

But we urge the government to be cautious. The current bill goes further than the government needs to reach its goals. It wasn't drafted with nearly enough attention to the impact on resource communities. It will have a disastrous effect on them if it becomes law in its current form. It's an invitation for people who have another objective in mind to put us into the court process to accomplish their other objective.

It won't do very much for protecting species that the committee - whatever you've shortened the name to.... I know my friends down in the United States call it the ``God Squad''. We sure don't need a God Squad.

.1025

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Munro.

Before going on to questions, I would like our other group at the table, Mr. Duchesne....and I want to welcome Mr. Jean Piette. I think you've appeared before us before. Your reputation is well known here on this committee.

Mr. Duchesne.

[Translation]

Mr. André Duchesne (Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Forest Industries Association): I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Quebec Forest Industries Association and I am accompanied by Mr. Piette, our legal advisor in this matter. I'll be making my presentation in French but Mr. Piette and I will be happy to answer your questions in either of the official languages.

The QFIA is an association of about 30 Quebec companies accounting for almost 100% of the pulp and paper production capacity and almost two thirds of the lumber production capacity. AsMr. Munro mentioned, this industry is very important for Canada and particularly for the economy of Quebec with an annual export value of over $10 billion, representing 21% of our total revenues last year. The industry invests more than a billion dollars a year mainly in the region and provides more than 200,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs. These jobs are better paid than the average job in the manufacturing sector.

Our association is happy to have this opportunity to speak to you today on Bill C-65. The members of our association applaud and support this initiative as far as the principle is concerned. This bill is part of an international movement in which Canada has played a leadership role. We are in favour of protecting our natural heritage, in Canada and in the rest of the world.

However, the objectives of the bill can only be achieved to the extent that the legislation encourages cooperation and partnership between the different levels of government and stakeholders. We have a number of concerns in this regard.

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has already appeared before your committee. Since most of our members also belong to the CPPA, we do not intend to repeat the comments and concerns voiced by that association. However, I would like to emphasize three points which, as you will observe, coincide in several respects with the comments of Mr. Monroe.

We are opposed to clause 33 which we consider to be dangerous and unacceptable. This clause gives the minister exclusive power to make regulations prohibiting any person from willfully harming an individual of a wildlife animal species. This provision provides that only a technical committee made up of nine people is required to determine that a species is endangered or threatened and that is migrates across an international boundary of Canada or has a range extending across such a boundary.

The prohibitions referred to in clauses 31 and 32, relating to threatened or endangered species, refer to the list of wildlife species at risk established by the government. However, clause 33 provides that a ministerial decision alone is sufficient to create a willful offense upon a recommendation to that effect from a nine- member technical committee.

It is our view that the criterion used, either the fact that the species concerned migrates across an international boundary or has a range extending across such a boundary, is of doubtful and unacceptable legislative value. In our opinion, the ability for a person, an animal or a good to migrate across an international barrier or to be present both within and outside Canada does not constitute a recognized criterion for legislative competence.

Moreover, it strikes us as unacceptable that a minister be empowered to define offenses simply because he has made a decision to that effect. Such discretion has very far-reaching consequences both from a political standpoint and that of democratic freedoms. We consider that it is the responsibility of Parliament to define what constitutes an offense and, as my legal expert would say, to ``create a crime''.

.1030

The second point concerns the recovery plan. We observed that the provisions of clause 38 and those that follow relating to recovery plans do not take into account socio-economic considerations nor do they provide for compensation measures for individuals, businesses or communities likely to be affected in their economic prospects or their development since it is presumed that a recovery plan will include a prohibition or restrictions on economic activities in most cases.

We think that the recovery plans provided for in subsection 38(5) require that socio-economic considerations be taken into account and should provide for adequate compensation measures. In other words, if an impact study is required before authorizing an industrial activity, an impact study should also be required before prohibiting an activity and thus adversely affecting the economic development of communities. Mr. Munro has given ample illustrations of that point.

My last point concerns action to protect. We are opposed to giving any citizen the right to take legal action to protect a species simply because he considers the results of an application for investigation to be unsatisfactory.

Bill C-65 already contains a number of measures encouraging the involvement of citizens in the management and administration of the law. In our opinion, the possibility for our citizens to intervene before the courts represents an abdication of the government's responsibilities with respect to the application of this legislation.

The members of the government are elected and depending on the level of government are paid by taxpayers to apply laws democratically adopted by legislative bodies. Thus enforcement of the law is the political responsibility of the government. The government's public and political accountability is at stake. To delegate part or all of these responsibilities to individual citizens strikes us as being quite inappropriate, especially since the effect will be to emphasize litigation rather than favouring a dialogue among stakeholders, as is the case in the United States.

I would like to draw to your attention that the political tradition in Canada is more inclined to favour dialogue, encouraging the various stakeholders to assume their responsibility, and in the particular case we are concerned with here, namely endangered species in Canada, such stakeholders can be citizens, individuals or government representatives.

In conclusion, we certainly have no problem with the spirit or the purpose of the bill, but a number of the terms and conditions should be reviewed.

Quebec, British Columbia and most other provinces already have provisions. In Quebec there is also a policy on biodiversity. Regulations relating to forestry practices already provide for the protection of species. All this will required harmonization if we wish to avoid creating useless complications.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Duchesne.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mr. Munro: Madam Chair, Claude would also like to make a bit of a presentation on behalf of FSAC.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Would it be all right if we waited for a round of questioning first and then went to your next presentation?

Mr. Munro: Certainly. I believe you should push the chair as much as you can. It's your job to sort it out, not mine.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I'm rather strong-willed, but I'm willing to bend if you wish.

Mr. Munro: That's all right.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Jennings: First I would like to thank you for your presentations. I too have to be in the House at around 11 a.m.

Mr. Munro, I'm probably going to address a lot of your concern here. I'm quite familiar with the logging area and the logging industry. I have property in Jordan River and for 16 years I have been right beside the dry land sort with my business and we have worked together, thankfully. Most concerns have been dealt with together, in a cooperative spirit.

.1035

I am concerned with what you say about time. I understand, Mr. Munro, that you're very concerned that there has not been adequate time on this bill, that even with the upcoming meetings - and there's probably just the one in Vancouver - you still do not think that is enough time to get the full scope of all interested stakeholders. I can understand your fear that the committee on the status of endangered wildlife won't address the concerns of all stakeholders and won't do wider scientific consultation. I take it that you're suggesting this is from the forestry's viewpoint and from your experts.

Could you suggest to all of us what kind of time you think is needed on this? What kind of extensions do you think we need to be fully prepared to enact any kind of legislation?

Mr. Munro: If nothing was happening in Canada, then I think we would need a shorter timeframe. There are lots of things happening that take care of part of this legislation, but in the wintertime it is a major imposition to ask people to traipse 600 or 700 or 800 or 900 miles to Vancouver to appear before a committee when they really work when it's frozen up there, especially in the north. You're familiar with Vancouver Island and the interior, both north and south.

I think if we're going to do a job for Canadian people who really are going to bear the largest share of the responsibility on this, they should have an opportunity to have input into the committee before the legislation. I don't see how that can possibly happen.

I guess I know as much about what's going to happen next year as everybody else who reads the papers. There's probably going to be an election in the spring and I don't think you can make it by spring. I don't think that's necessarily bad. We've all said we're committed to the legislation but we would much rather see it written properly prior to being passed than try to correct it afterward, because by that time we'll be in the courts and that's a long process.

Mrs. Jennings: Do you have any sense at all as to the urgency of particular endangered species in regard to the forest industry? Do you see signs of anything that requires immediate...?

Mr. Munro: Not at all. We have not really heard about anything that's gone extinct as a result of the forestry industry. British Columbia has done a lot. I read the list of the areas we have protected, and I do not think there is any danger in delaying this for a period of time to allow us to do it properly. We all want it, but it should be done properly.

Mrs. Jennings: So you're suggesting we continue with this after the next election.

Mr. Munro: Whether or not there's an election in the spring, certainly it should be done after the next session. I don't think you can get it done before the next session is complete.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Plamondon (President, Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du papier et de la forêt du Québec): I wonder what the view of the Forest Sector Advisory Council representatives is, about whether that should be under the umbrella of the federal government. There are lots of laws at the present time and we refer to this in our report.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): If I may interrupt, did you have a supplementary presentation you wanted to make? It would probably be more convenient to have you do that at this point, if your presentation is not too long.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: Jack's remark is related to the question that the lady has just asked and that is why I was making my point.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Yes, and that's the reason I made this intervention now. If you want to do that and it's not too long, why don't you just make your presentation and perhaps the answer will be incorporated.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: I'm talking about the region I am most familiar with since it's the one I come from, namely the Quebec region. If a bill were implemented, this would have to be done by the communities with the people working in the sector.

We think that it's important for the federal government to oversee to some extent what is being done at the present time. Many laws are in effect both in Quebec and other provinces. We know that forestry and water come under provincial jurisdiction but would it not be reasonable for the federal government to oversee this bill?

.1040

I attended the United Nation's food and agriculture conference last October in Quebec City. Five of the proposals relating to the maintenance of species were adopted. They say, among other things, that people living from the forest or agriculture should be consulted on such matters.

In our report we raise a question about the impact on workers who are directly or indirectly affected. This is an aspect that is not dealt with in the bill. The bill does refer to mammals, birds and plants but it does not specify what types of plants.

Does that mean that a whole forest can be shut down? I do not really grasp the point because there are lots of plants in forests. In Quebec as well as in the other provinces there are various wildlife reserves for the conservation of species. The Forest Sector Advisory Council is very concerned about this kind of legislation. André already made reference to clause 33 which penalizes people for particular types of acts.

In my opinion and in the opinion of the Council, we do not need this kind of bill but rather information and education for the public about our responsibilities relating to endangered species. This is point I wanted to make.

Then, there are the more general concerns of the public. We have an 11% unemployment rate in Quebec. Will this bill not cause the loss of jobs for the inhabitants of entire towns? There are lots of towns in Quebec like La Tuque, Lebel-sur-Quévillon in the Northwest or towns in the Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean area where the forest is the mainstay of the economy.

I'm afraid that this bill will cause the loss of thousands of jobs. Those are hard facts but that's reality. We are in regular contact with citizens and this bill is of great concern to us.

Those are my concerns. We certainly agree with the principle of protecting species. We also agreed with bills relating to the protection of the forest but in my opinion this particular bill represents an increased trend towards criminalization and litigation.

In conclusion, it seems to me that instead of having this bill, we should have something to oversee these matters. Since forests are an area of provincial jurisdiction, there must be co- operation with the provinces in regulating what is taking place.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Forseth: I just wanted one brief supplemental. Mr. Munro, you talked about the premise of community acceptance and cooperation. You said that the variety of stakeholders out there should buy into the process rather than developing an adversarial response and resisting the legislation, if we could get everybody onside. I'm especially saying that if we could get you onside, it would certainly influence a number of people in British Columbia to say, well, if Jack says it's okay, then we're going to go with it as well and support it.

I hope we can develop a cooperative relationship so that your concerns are indeed specifically addressed and you are then able to fulfil the larger principle of responsible endangered species legislation, whatever that would be, which you said you support in principle. But the devil is always in the details, isn't it? If we can get the specific designations done to your satisfaction, then you would do what you could through your resources to bring other groups onside and develop that community cooperation you're talking about.

I would encourage you to get as many local groups as possible to come forward and present at the committee in Vancouver. We are going to Vancouver, but we'll probably be there only a day or a day and a half.

.1045

Could you briefly address this whole issue of community cooperation and acceptance rather than going down the road of being an adversary?

Mr. Munro: Just before I say that, I'd say that you flatter me. The people who say that if Jack thinks it's okay, then it's okay - they don't come and talk to me. I talk to the other side, and I'll tell you, what they say sometimes isn't so flattering.

Phillip.

Mr. Phillip Legg (Forest Sector Advisory Council): I want to touch on a couple of points raised by the first speaker that had to do with the issue of time and Jack's comment about this being rather late in the mandate.

There was a task force process that preceded the development of this legislation. I guess our nervousness about this legislation would be a lot lower had many of the major recommendations of that task force been incorporated into the legislation. They are not there.

I think the Inuit presenters spoke eloquently to this point: that legislation succeeds when citizens support the good faith that it's built on. The vagueness of this legislation and the gaps in it, especially the issues in clause 38 on recovery plans, those kinds of problems make us think that this process has somehow missed a very important point. If it's missed the important point, the legislation is going to fail.

Unfortunately, failure out amongst the folks is probably going to look like gridlock in the court system. There are all sorts of tactical battles we've seen take place in the Pacific northwest. We don't think that's the way you make the endangered species commitment or the biodiversity commitment that sits behind this legislation...that's not how you make those commitments work. We're just going to find ourselves tangled up in knots.

So to the point of how much longer we need to study the issue, the fact that this legislation varies so considerably from the task force report means that we think we have to go back to square one on a lot of these points.

Mr. Munro: The short answer to your question, Paul, is yes. My own organization supports the premise or the idea of endangered species legislation, but there are a lot of pitfalls between here and there.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson: Let me preface my questions by saying that I very much appreciate your concern about communities, employment and jobs. I sense that you feel very passionately about this, and I appreciate that. I often think that the current forestry industry often has to bear the brunt of previous practices and perhaps is treated a little unfairly in terms of what it currently does.

Mr. Munro: No doubt.

Mr. Knutson: I wish I had more than ten minutes to try to work this out.

We've had witnesses testify that concerning the ability of citizens to apply for an investigation and then go to court, the actual threshold to initiate this is set far too high. People should have the right to go to court to seek justice.

One witness who had input into the wording of the Ontario legislation said the wording in this legislation is very similar. In Ontario there has not been one example of a citizen or a citizens' group coming forward to challenge the legislation or to challenge the behaviour of the minister in court.

On one hand, we have somebody saying that if you word it this way, you're not going to get anybody going through the courts because the barrier to court access in terms of the minister having to do an investigation is too high. Then you're saying quite the opposite, that the wording in this proposed legislation....

I wonder if you could specifically tell me how the American legislation is worded. Does it have things like giving the minister the opportunity to invoke an investigation, to issue reasons why that the investigation is going on...that presumably the courts would look at once you tried to get into the next stage? Can you just tell me specifically how close the American legislation wording is to this one?

.1050

Mr. Munro: I'm not an expert on the American legislation, other than the fact that it does provide that they can go to court. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund is the group that went to court, mostly in the United States, and it's the one that was successful in getting a lot of forests taken away from workers in the forest industry and the communities.

I don't know about Ontario, but in British Columbia they have been going to the courts now. So far the judges have been saying, look, this is the forest minister, it's the government's responsibility. The latest one was a couple of months ago, where the same organization, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, was in trying to stop Interfor from building a logging road to get in to do some logging because they were too close to an old stump. They went to the courts to try to get the courts to issue an injunction to stop that.

They will be in the courts. They're there now. Even though the courts haven't really dealt it, it's more the government that has been dealing with these issues, they're trying constantly to get the courts to upset forest policy.

Mr. Legg: Let me add something a little more detailed to that, the experience in B.C. with the Forest Practices Code. Jack is right, there have been several challenges in the courts to use injunctions as a way to circumvent certain parts of the Forest Practices Code.

Mr. Knutson: Have they been successful?

Mr. Legg: No, they haven't. The reason they haven't been successful is that the Forest Practices Code included a provision called the Forest Practices Board. It's an administrative review channel that screens the validity of, or investigates, claims that are made on the part of citizens. The problem is that we have a system in place now.... We have a problem now with the Forest Practices Board being clogged with a lot of complaints that have no merit, and there's no system to say to those who are launching complaints, wait a minute, if you are going to launch a complaint it has to be substantial, you have to be able to back it up, and if you can't back it up there's going to be a penalty to pay for it. The consequence of your not doing that is that you basically make it free for people to come in and do whatever they can on a tactical level to try to achieve something.

Mr. Knutson: Let me stay with that point for a second. This bill specifically says a minister can dismiss a request for an investigation if it's perceived as being frivolous or vexatious. So there is a process right off the bat. The minister can say this has no merit, we're not going to investigate. If I were a judge I would put some weight on that.

Clause 60 says you can go to court only if the responsible minister has not acted in a reasonable fashion. We've been told that's too high a bar; if we put that high a bar in place no one will go to court. So on the one hand -

Mr. Legg: The experience in British Columbia is that with the Forest Practices Board we have an administrative system in place to guard against exactly what you're describing there, and even with that threshold we still get an avalanche of complaints that have no factual basis. That is forcing the Forest Practices Board to expend an awful lot of money to go and launch these investigations at a time when, quite frankly, governments don't have a lot of money. As fortunate as we are in B.C., the situation generally across the piece is that governments don't have a lot of money to spend on these sorts of things.

When the Inuit were here you talked about ramping up to make sure you had the institutional capacity to make this legislation work. Clearly those kinds of bottlenecks and gridlock potential are the things that are going to divert a lot of resources away from things that are really important.

Mr. Knutson: I'll just make the point and then move on. This wording is like that of the Ontario legislation. There have been no requests of the courts to intervene. That's what we've been told. Perhaps that means this wording is good wording, because it's not like the American wording, presumably, or it's not like the B.C. forest management board.

.1055

I was talking to American conservationists the other day, and what they were saying was that because the social impact of the owl specifically was not considered, there's a huge reluctance to list species that might be endangered now. Because these communities in the States have been so adversely affected and there's been such an uproar, that actually has had a perverse effect on conservation. I agree that we have to put things in balance, and if we don't put things in balance, the whole system is not going to work.

Mr. Legg: Are you suggesting then that you're prepared to amend clause 38 to include socio-economic considerations?

Mr. Knutson: I think it's already in the act. I think the provision is all part of ``reasonable'' in clause 60.

Mr. Munro: But we Canadians who don't hang around these halls all that often are pretty damned nervous about some of these vague kinds of thoughts. At the town hall meeting the other day, I kind of felt -

An hon. member: It felt like a little bit of a sham.

Mr. Knutson: The town hall meeting was a set-up by CBC to make good theatre, and it was good theatre.

I guess my point is that if we look at the wording of the Ontario legislation, which mirrors this wording, there hasn't been a problem and perhaps there won't be a problem with this wording either.

Mr. Legg: My only comment to that is that in B.C., the Forest Practices Code is what I would consider to be a higher threshold in terms of complaint. Even with that higher threshold, we never anticipated that we would get the kind of complaint action we got. We haven't made any amendments to the legislation to say that where we can find no substance to the complaint, we are going to have to bear the cost of what that investigation was all about. I think the Inuit presentation made a good point on that. Quite frankly, at a minimum that's what should be in place.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I think you wanted to add a comment, Jean.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Piette (Counsel, Ogilvy Renault): If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to make a clarification with respect to the protection action opened to any citizen under clause 60 and following clauses.

The member says that a citizen may request a minister to conduct an investigation when he believes that an offence has been committed. The minister is politically accountable to Parliament and if he is not concerned with carrying out this responsibility properly, he must account to the people and to Parliament.

What we find unacceptable here is the fact that the judicial power is called upon to intervene and make a decision about whether the minister's decision is reasonable or not.

Since the person making the decision is responsible for carrying out investigations and is accountable to Parliament and the population at large, we think that it is inappropriate for a court to make a judgment about whether or not the minister's action or decision is reasonable.

Mr. Munro also alluded to the various programs where citizens or groups could intervene and bring an action.

When the government intervenes to take legal proceedings against a person who has committed or is alleged to have committed an offence, the government is acting on behalf of the public interest, to protect the public and to enforce the rule of law.

When individuals bring action under provisions such as section 60 and the following ones, they may have entirely different motives. Their motives may be political or economical. For example, in Quebec there is an access to information act that provides very wide access to anyone seeking information from the government. We've often seen competitors attempting to find out information about other businesses, etc.

There can be abuses in that kind of system. In Ontario there has not yet been any action brought but the scope of the Ontario law is different from the scope of this one.

.1100

This law has a wider geographical scope. It also raises concerns that are of a more political and even ideological nature and thus involves greater risks. These are the reasons why the association is opposed to giving citizens the right to sue.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Piette.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan is next, then Mr. Steckle, and we'll conclude with Mr. Taylor.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I heard one of the witnesses say that he was concerned about this legislation because it didn't meet with what the task force said. Are you supportive of the report of the task force? Is that what you support?

Mr. Legg: The task force had a bunch of recommendations that we supported. We didn't support them all. The task force came up with some key definitions that didn't make it into the legislation. I can't give you the details right now. I could send them to you later.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association signed on to this task force report. And I'd like to point out, as have many witnesses before this committee, that the legislation is far weaker than the task force report.

In some of the areas that you're concerned about, for example, recovery plans and implementation of the recovery plans and things like that, the task force report said that the minister ``shall'' review it and shall do this and shall do that. The legislation, however, says that the minister ``may'' do it. The minister has more discretion, so it's weaker than what the task force report stated.

Mr. Legg: Let me just make this comment. If there were amendments that included provisions saying that the minister ``shall'' consider socio-economic and ``shall'' compensate communities and ``shall'' consult with affected communities, we obviously we wouldn't have as great a concern as we have today. This notion of ``reasonableness'' just doesn't wash.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It washes in the law. You were also concerned about -

Mr. Legg: It depends. Not all the time.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You were also concerned about COSEWIC, with just nine members designating a species. COSEWIC is comprised of over twenty individuals who are using science as the basis for designating species, so it's not just nine individuals who designate.

Mr. Legg: I think my friends at that end of the table brought up that specific issue, so maybe they'd like to speak to it.

Mr. Duchesne: Yes. The way we understand it, the technical committee that makes recommendations to the minister is made up of nine people. They may consult any experts they want, but the recommendations come from the nine people and then the decision is made by the minister.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No. It's made by cabinet.

Mr. Duchesne: It's in clause 33. From that, we understand that the minister decides.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But for a species to be designated under COSEWIC and to actually be listed...it has a different listing process than what you have indicated. The nine members have to receive their information from, I think, about 28 scientists who are experts in different fields. These nine members don't do the status reports. The scientists do.

Mr. Duchesne: Obviously.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. So it's based on science.

Mr. Duchesne: The research is not done by the nine people. We understand that.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I know. It's based on science, so that point was incorrect.

I also wanted to point out that while there may be some goofy ideas in downtown Toronto and downtown Vancouver - and I'm not entirely sure which goofy ideas you were referring to - I agree with some of those goofy ideas and I live in a rural community. So it's not just people in downtown Toronto who can have goofy ideas about nature. Sometimes people who live in rural communities can have those goofy ideas too.

Mr. Munro: I don't disagree. There are some good ideas coming out of downtown Toronto and downtown Vancouver and downtown every other place, but I'm saying that for a committee that is so vital to the life of a community it isn't fair just to go downtown Toronto or downtown Vancouver. If this legislation has the potential to shut down Campbell River, then you have an obligation to go to Campbell River before you draft your legislation...or to Prince George or Fort St. John or any other place.

.1105

As we've said, most rural communities - and I think the Inuit people said it well - have learned how to live with nature and with species and how to take care of them so that there is an abundant or ongoing supply. They can't get away, especially in winter, especially in the north. In a lot of places in Canada, most of the logging is done then. To expect them to buy a $1,000 plane ticket to come and sit for fifteen minutes before a committee in downtown Vancouver that has the potential to take their livelihood away...I don't think you can get that done in the next few months before Parliament is adjourned and we get into an election.

We support the legislation, but any legislation of its kind has major pitfalls, and why do we want to wring ourselves through this in Canada? There is widespread support for the legislation, but there are pitfalls. That's the message that we're trying to deliver. I didn't make up this speech since I watched the town hall meeting, but if you don't think that meeting didn't reflect - and I felt sorry for the Prime Minister, and I'm not a Liberal - what a hell of a lot of people in Canada are feeling, then you should go to downtown Fort St. John and downtown Prince George and downtown in a lot of other places.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Someone pointed out that government doesn't have a lot of resources. And one of the reasons we can't hit every single small community in this country is just that: we don't have the resources to do it. We don't have the financial resources.

People are more than welcome to submit briefs. They are more than welcome to contact us through a variety of different means and tell us what their opinions are on this legislation. There is no one in this country who is prohibited from sending us information or sending us their feelings about this particular legislation, and any witness who appears before this committee has their expenses paid for.

Mr. Munro: I must say that I've sat on several federal commissions, and I'm saying that for anything as serious as this, when we compare it to other jurisdictions with similar legislation...it has a devastating effect. And if the government or this committee doesn't have the money to go to places that are going to be severely affected, the people won't support the legislation, which means it probably won't work. So you should postpone until you get the money.

This has devastating effects. I would be quite pleased to take you to several communities less than 200 miles from Vancouver and show you what those communities look like now with exactly the same legislation. And primarily because the legislation allows them to go to court with bogus arguments, a sympathetic judge will shut down communities. We shouldn't put ourselves through that in Canada. There is no need to put ourselves through that in Canada.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think my colleague has pointed out very clearly the safeguards in the legislation for vexatious and frivolous complaints in civil suits, and I would like to know what percentage land being used by forestry companies is actually federal land.

Mr. Munro: It depends on which part of Canada you're in. In British Columbia, not much.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay, so it's about 2%.

A voice: On Vancouver Island, the lot -

Mr. Munro: That's right, on Vancouver Island, the lot.

Mr. Legg: Have you ever heard of the E & N lands? They go right up the middle of -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We were told that this legislation does not cover any species on Vancouver Island. The scope is very limited in terms of coverage. In fact, The Globe and Mail, which is very much a pro-business newspaper, has criticized us because we have not exercised our federal jurisdiction.

So I would suggest that perhaps you need to look at the legislation a little more clearly and -

Mr. Munro: The Globe and Mail in downtown Toronto is maybe a good example of what the hell I'm trying to point out. What does ``geographically distinct population'' mean?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Some of your concerns are not founded on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Legg: But you're -

Mr. Munro: You're taking a chance. You're betting that it doesn't, and we're saying that similar legislation does.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Could we could go to Mr. Taylor, please?

Before we go to Mr. Taylor, though, Mr. Munro, I would like to point out to you that we've had over 500 presentations made to this committee, most of them in the form of letters and written presentations, and most of them are in fact very favourable.

However, I guess this argument does stand to give us an indication of how important it is for us to strike the right balance, and doing that is not always very easy. I think the kinds of representation we've had from across this country are indicative of the kind of issues we're dealing with here.

.1110

Mr. Munro: May I answer that? We support the intent of the legislation. It's the areas we've had to deal with that make us very nervous in looking at similar legislation. One of the problems we had in getting off the ground....

At the public consultation that was held in Vancouver a year or a year and a half ago or whenever it was fifty select groups were invited. Forty-nine of them were all, generally speaking, preservationists. That is not public consultation, and it was secret.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Without getting into a debate on that particular point, I think all parties have equal rights and opportunity to appear. But perhaps that's a debate for another day.

Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much.

I want to direct my questions primarily to the witnesses from Quebec, because Quebec does have endangered species legislation. As Mrs. Kraft Sloan indicated, the legislation in front of us deals primarily with endangered species on federal lands and with certain species that fall under federal jurisdiction. Forestry is primarily a provincial responsibility, and the experience in the province of Quebec might be useful for us in understanding how the legislation actually applies.

Could you give us some indication about how the listing process in Quebec has affected forest operations, how any sort of mitigating effort or planning out of the listing process has affected operations in Quebec? In particular, the listing process in Quebec, like that advocated in the federal bill, does have a political aspect to it. COSEWIC is a scientific listing, but before it actually gets into the provincial act the minister must approve that process of listing. In Quebec the legislative listing is actually behind the COSEWIC listing. There are species on the COSEWIC list that are not on the Quebec list. Could you give us some idea of what your experience is in Quebec and how that provincial legislation has affected your practices?

Mr. Duchesne: There are a couple of very significant differences. Before we get to deal with the Endangered Species Act in the first place, a lot of regulations have been put forward in the Forest Act and its regulations to protect species. Most of the ground is covered there, and the

[Translation]

regulations on enforcement procedures.

[English]

which is the regulation that tells governments how an industry can proceed to do harvesting and silviculture, takes out of contention most of the difficulties with species. The Endangered Species Act just touches up on whatever problems there may be after the regulations in the Forest Act have been abided with.

So it tends to be a relatively minor concern, because most of the effect needed has already been done when you abide by the first regulation. But then of course there's a difference in the way the lists are made and so on, and there are a number of points of contact with the federal proposal here. That's part of our concern. We fear, especially on land that is bound to be federal, although there's a question here on exactly what land the federal legislation would apply to.... For some of the land that has been allocated to the Crees in the north, for instance, the regulations for silviculture apply there, the Quebec Endangered Species Act applies there, and then we understand the federal act will apply there as well.

.1115

It seems to us it is bound to happen that some group, whether it's a native group or somebody who wants to protect a species, honestly or dishonestly, will go to the Forest Act, then to the Quebec Endangered Species Act, and if that still doesn't work, it will go to the federal endangered species act. So we're multiplying the instances there, and we don't feel it is necessary to have three ways of making sure a species is protected. We don't see any immediate problems in species protection.

Mr. Piette: I should also add that in Quebec the list is established after due consultation with resource ministers. One of the concerns we have with this bill is that, for example, clause 33 provides for a minister's decision. In his own mind there is no requirement to consult with anyone, and certainly not the cabinet, so we're very concerned about that clause. I guess that's one of the differences between Quebec's act and Bill C-65.

I would like to point out the necessity here of clarifying subclause 3(2), the application of this proposed act. We think it's not clear. It clearly applies to federal land, because when you read it, in either French or English, you could interpret it to mean that it applies to any species that happen to be on federal land, but it may also apply outside of federal lands. It's not clearly drawn, in our view. It should be very clearly stated that this applies to species that are present on federal land.

I would also like to refer to subclause 2(1), the definition of ``listed''. There's a reference to a list established by the minister under clause 30. I think the Governor in Council establishes that list. I think there is an error here, which I would like to point out because we were concerned with that when we read the bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you.

Under the Quebec legislation on endangered species dealing with the cooperative nature of government and industry participants, is there any redress or compensation at the provincial level should endangered species create difficulties for the industry?

Mr. Duchesne: I am not sure how it goes about this, because we've never had any confrontation on it.

Mr. Taylor: It's never been a problem.

Mr. Duchesne: I know that when the legislation was enacted the farmers were very concerned about it because of that problem. There were exemptions made to satisfy their concerns, so I suspect it's weakened there as well.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Mr. Munro: Can I just add a little bit to the last question?

When President Clinton was confronted with that problem on the west coast, he put together some money or whatever. We saw some pictures on the tube of loggers pushing rocks around the side of a road with rakes. They were being retrained to push rocks around the side of a road. It was insulting, to say the very least. It wasn't proper redress or compensation.

Mr. Knutson: I have a brief point. I think it's for the gentleman over there.

Did I understand you to say that under clause 33 the minister doesn't have to consult with anyone? I think that's what I heard you say.

A voice: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Knutson: So it's a matter of consultation.

Mr. Piette: It's a form of consultation, but we think that also consulting the other ministers who have economic responsibilities would be appropriate.

Mr. Knutson: And you want us to put that in the legislation.

Mr. Piette: We would like clause 23 to be deleted. We don't think clause 23 is acceptable in its form, and we don't think it adds anything. We think it only creates duplication with provincial legislation that already protects endangered species on interprovincial public lands. So we don't think this clause is acceptable.

Mr. Knutson: We agree that it only applies to species that migrate across international boundaries under subparagraph 2(1)(b)(i).

Mr. Piette: Yes, we see that.

Mr. Knutson: So we have an example in which a bear is protected in the U.S. It wanders into Alberta where it isn't protected. It wanders into Banff National Park. It's protected in a national park. It wanders back into Alberta where it isn't protected. Then it goes back to the United States where it is protected. This is all on a given day. Does that strike you as a good situation, sir?

Mr. Munro: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Knutson: I'm not making this up. We've had evidence in front of us. That's the actual case.

Mr. Duchesne: This is not that unusual. If there is a hunting season on that bear and he crosses boundaries, then he will be subject to hunting whether it's within the season that's authorized or not.

Mr. Knutson: My point is that we have different jurisdictions with different rules and different thresholds. The lowest one is going to prevail. If we're doing our job to protect a particular species, say, in Canada and it's not protected in the United States, then all our efforts will be for naught. In this example the bear travels and gets shot in hunting season. We seem to have a race to the bottom in terms of standards.

.1120

Mr. Duchesne: You have a point, but we think the role of the federal administration is to make sure protection is accorded to that endangered species. If in some jurisdiction within Canada the protection is obviously inadequate compared with what is given elsewhere, either in the United States or some other province, then there is a reason to intervene. Otherwise there might be differences. You can't ``uniformize'' what's done in the United States and Canada. The species will have to live with that. It's consultation rather than duplication that is going to help the species.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: Generally speaking, people who live in Toronto, Montreal or in large Canadian cities are not very familiar with the forest, they do not live in close contact with it nor do they earn their living from it. For a better understanding, I think it is important to consult people living in the different regions of Canada and Quebec, people in communities that depend on the forest. They would be able to give you a better view of Bill C-65 and the appropriate response. That's the advice I would give you. We work with foresters within these communities. Without necessarily calling witnesses from all regions. I suggest you get in touch with certain regions to hear the opinion of people whose living depends on the forest. That's all.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Steckle, for a short question.

Mr. Steckle: I would like to expand somewhat on the scenario about the bear put forward by my colleague.

We'll take that bear. He is protected in the U.S. He crosses into Canada, and he could be shot in a given area where he's not under federal jurisdiction because there's a season that would allow him to be shot, given that there's a reasonable population in that area to allow for a season to exist in the first place. Therefore, it's not endangered in that particular area. So we go back to the issue of geographically distinct populations.

.1125

Is this what we're talking about, Madam Chair, where in Oregon or Washington that species may be limited in its numbers, as is the spotted owl in certain areas? But there may be certain areas where this spotted owl is not endangered.

Somehow I feel we have to have greater cooperation between the U.S. and Canada, and provincially. Somehow there has to be an embodiment of legislation here that allows jurisdictions to work together. If we're not doing that, then basically this is a defeatist piece of legislation. You don't shoot a bear out of season legally. You don't shoot a bear where there is no season.

Mr. Munro: I think we're a lot better off in Canada, even without this legislation, than they are in the United States with the legislation.

We can talk about salmon on the west coast. There's no salmon. They closed the salmon fishery down on the west coast of the United States because they put dams on the rivers and the salmon can't get up to spawn. It doesn't matter what kind of endangered species legislation you have; it isn't going to prevent that problem.

As far as the spotted owl is concerned - and I don't want to rehash the arguments I've already put - the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund are the people who went to court. The leader of that organization, whose role is to shut down the forest industry, said thank goodness for the spotted owl; he's our surrogate as far as the old-growth forests are concerned, and if it weren't for the spotted owl, we would have had to invent something else.

A lot of people don't think the spotted owl ever was endangered, and now it's becoming a pest. But they used the same types of things that are talked about in this legislation. We don't need that in Canada. We should learn from those mistakes.

Mr. Steckle: I realize this is not dealing with the technical aspects of the bill, but I think it's important for this committee to hear exactly what the reasons were that those communities in the United States you spoke about earlier were closed down. What was the specific species, or what was the issue? Who were the ones who were promulgating the whole notion of their being endangered?

Mr. Munro: The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund went to the court system and convinced a circuit court judge that the owl was endangered, so he put on a moratorium or stopped any forest activity from going on in thousands of acres of forest.

Mr. Steckle: It's on the record. Thank you.

Would you cite the location, the state and the community, please?

Mr. Munro: The west coast of Washington...Oregon, is the best example. I think Sweet Home, Oregon, is what we talked about.

A voice: District 6 of the U.S. Forest Service.

Mr. Steckle: District 6 of the U.S. Forest Service? Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

I want to thank the presenters for their very in-depth presentations this morning. I suppose if I want to take a line from one of my colleagues who used to be here in the House and say that he was the voice of the fish, I guess we have to look at ourselves as being the voice of the animals, plants and other elements of the forest. Thank you again for your presentation.

Mr. Munro: We're trying to help you onto the right track.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Would the committee please advise me as to whether you want to take a short break, or will we continue with the next presentation?

Mr. Steckle: We'd better continue. I have to be out of here at 11:45 a.m.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Would the next group of presenters come to the table, please?

Welcome, and please introduce yourselves.

Ms Elizabeth White (Director, Animal Alliance of Canada): Good morning. I'm Liz White. I'm with the Animal Alliance of Canada, which is a federally incorporated, non-profit organization with about 20,000 members across Canada and about 5,000 volunteers. I was also a member of the endangered species task force and went through a number of months of discussions about some of the very issues you've been talking about today. I'm appearing on behalf of my organization and not in relation to the task force, although I will refer to some of our discussions with regard to the task force.

I've submitted some recommendations, but I will not talk directly about all of those recommendations unless you want to ask me some questions. What I'd like to do is touch on four key issues, and just very briefly touch on a fifth.

.1130

The first one I want to talk about is the listing process. The task force spent a lot of time on the listing process and on what would, at the time of listing, be the various things that would kick into place as a result of listing. We agreed that some very narrow prohibitions would in fact kick in - you couldn't directly harm an animal or a plant, or you couldn't hurt the area where it lives - but that there would not be any consequence of listing beyond that. We had talked about the consequence of listing being put into the recovery plan, so I'll address that part in the recovery plan.

What we did talk about was the fact that we were trying to make the listing process apolitical. One of the concerns that was raised by some of the industry and by environmentalists was that there was, in fact, this enormous fight that went on at the time of listing if it wasn't done on the basis of biology and science. I think the difficulty with the way in which the act is written right now is that it really puts it back into the political forum again. I think that makes it very difficult for both industry and environmentalists and conservationists alike.

One of the things we talked about in the task force was to try to end the valley-by-valley, tree-by-tree, animal-by-animal fight that is typically ensconced within the endangered species arguments that have gone on in the United States and to some degree in Canada. The problem with the way it's written now is that this is what is going to result. What we need is for animals and plants to be listed on the basis of biology. The consequence of listing will then be developed through the recovery plan and will ultimately be a political decision, but if we make the politics up front, we begin the fight before we've even decided what category the species should be in and why.

The second concern with regard to listing is the ability for a minister to decide not to list a species - I guess we would call it the loophole - as COSEWIC has recommended. That is, if there are more consequences in a recovery plan for listing a species as endangered versus threatened, I believe there may be some political problems and pressures not to list it as COSEWIC has recommended. So on we go with the political fight with regard to listing.

The second point I want to talk about is the issue of the direct harm to species and their homes. This means the automatic prohibitions that kick in as a result of listing. I think the automatic prohibitions aren't too bad, but I would suggest that we include disturbance in the automatic prohibitions. Under disturbances included in the Migratory Birds Convention Act, you're not allowed to disturb nests, etc. Disturbances of nests occur fairly regularly and are very disruptive to the actual birds. So I would suggest that we also include that in the automatic prohibitions within this bill.

Touching on the issue of recovery plans and habitat, one of the discussions we had about listing was not to have an automatic prohibition with regard to habitat at the time of listing because it has caused so many problems, as has been outlined within the American legislation. So one of the things we touched on was to say that as conservationists on the task force, we won't ask for mandatory habitat protection at the time of listing, but we want it in the recovery plan. If habitat is seen as the reason for the decline in the species, we would like mandatory habitat protection in the recovery plan.

The difficulty with the recovery plan as outlined in the bill is that it is not mandatory, it's optional. I think that is a serious weakness in the bill and I would recommend that the committee actually consider changing that particular part of it. Once a recovery plan is done, it must be implemented. There shouldn't be an option not to implement it.

.1135

The other thing I would say about the recovery plan is that I think there needs to be a section in which the recovery plan is developed, and is developed on the basis of biology as well. Many of the decisions that will be made with regard to rehabilitating a species that is in trouble should be made on the basis of biology.

The recommendations that came out on how to actually put the recovery plan into place were, I believe: the time when the political process takes place; when the broad consultation takes place; when the community decides; when the politicians decide how much money we can spend on this, who's going to do it, how we can cooperate through this very complex network that we have in Canada of trying to address things. I think we need to make the recovery plans mandatory. We need to make habitat protection within the recovery plans mandatory. And we have to leave the consultation process towards the end, where the recommendations actually come out of biological considerations.

The second last point I'd like to talk about very briefly is the exemptions. Most of the exemptions are so-so. I'm uncomfortable with the exemptions, but given that there's a permit and a process that people have to go through with regard to the permits, I think that at least puts some balance and counterbalance in place with consideration.

The areas I have very great difficulty with are the broad automatic exemptions for animal and plant health and public health and national security. I think you've left a loophole in the bill that you could drive a truck through. I understand why there need to be some exemptions for emergency situations, and there will be emergency situations for which there is no time to get an exemption. But what I would suggest you do is not give the broad automatic exemptions. Say instead that where there are truly emergency situations and somebody has to act, at the end of that process he or she must actually go to get a permit or some sort of form to fill out that says what the emergency was, what was done, what effects it had on the animal's or plant's habitat, and whether or not it adversely affected the animal or plant. There would then be at least some sign, some sort of after-the-fact evaluation of exactly what the emergency situation was. It would then not just become, ``It was an emergency situation, so we had to do this because of plant and animal health''.

The very last thing I would like to talk about - and I didn't hear anybody talk about it today - is the advance review. We had a great, long discussion in the task force about advance review. It seemed to me that with regard to industry members who sat on the committee, and to the conservation organizations, that this was a preventive measure. It got industry to sit back and look at the situation before it actually invested a huge amount of money into a process that may ultimately be stopped if there are endangered species involved in the area of whatever the activity is. I would recommend that the committee take a look at it.

A number of papers have taken a look at advance review. It can be done in a number of different ways. I guess what it comes down to is that it really is an environmental assessment, but it's a mechanism that is used prior to industry investing huge dollars into various developments or forestry practices or whatever. It allows a process to go forward and allows communities to participate, and it permits a total buy-in from industry and the community into a process that will actually begin to work through mechanisms to protect endangered species within a natural resource-based economy.

That's basically my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions at some point.

.1140

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Ms White.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you very much, Ms White, for your presentation.

I heard mentioned, I believe from the members opposite, that in 1980 the listing process was updated and it should have been every ten years. That's one of my concerns. I believe from what I've heard that it did not get updated in 1990. Do you see that as a major concern that should have been addressed?

I am concerned with what you say about this bill putting the whole listing process back in the political field instead of with those who have the expertise and experience. I'm concerned that all stakeholders who have the expertise be in that process, so I want you to know that I share your concerns there.

I notice that on page 3 you say that at least 50% of COSEWIC members should be from outside government. I believe that the Animal Alliance of Canada is actually, believe it or not, alongside with the forestry sector, because I think Mr. Munro was suggesting that. He said there are too many people from government involved and not enough stakeholders.

I would suggest that there is more opportunity for all of you to sit down at the table and come to a cooperative agreement on this. Perhaps politics should play second fiddle to this and come in after decisions have been made by those who understand the process - the forestry and the ranchers and everybody concerned.

My concern is even exemplified. One of the gentlemen here from the forestry sector said there was an original task force that made major recommendations. Yet Bill C-65 varies so much from the recommendations made that they can't even find themselves in it. How do you feel? Do you feel it didn't take into consideration those who went to all the work of making presentations?

I believe we have to coexist; it's really important. So I guess I'm asking if you agree with them that we need more time for this so that we can revisit it. Are we rushing? Or do you feel there's a need for urgency because particular species are right now in danger and need some kind of attention?

Ms White: Listening to a couple of gentlemen say that we're in much better shape in Canada than they are in the United States, and that we have been able to manage our affairs accordingly, I think the fact that we have 275 - or whatever it is at this point - endangered species in Canada points to the fact that we haven't kept our house in order.

As much as I'm concerned about the contents of the legislation and the length of time it's taking to go through - it's going through, from a legislative point of view, at a fairly rapid rate - I still support its going through quickly. Even if we aren't totally comfortable with everything in the bill, it's nonetheless a starting point. There is opportunity through regulation to make some changes, and ultimately there will be some opportunity through the legislative process to amend the act once we get a sense of how well it works.

I'm concerned that we at minimum make sure that the federal government, to whatever it decides is the extent of its federal authority, has the tools it needs to do the work. I'm concerned that the legislation as it stands now doesn't really give you those tools. ``May'', ``possibly'' - all those sorts of words make it very difficult for even the community outside to understand how the piece of legislation works.

If a species is listed by scientists who say that this animal or this plant is endangered, and the minister says, by the way, I think it's only threatened - because they make that decision - it sends a confusing message to the public. It's important that the legislation, whatever it is, send a clear message to the public, be simply written, be easy to interpret, and that people understand what it's about. There are too many words that allow the act and components of it, particularly in the areas of the recovery plan and the habitat protection, not to be implemented.

.1145

Mrs. Jennings: I want to add one thing to that, Madam Chair.

I'm concerned about one particular species, the black bear in B.C. I haven't yet heard you mentioning that, and I certainly haven't heard the forestry officials mentioning that. Is it really in danger? People, as we know, are taking it for one small part and not using the whole animal, violating our rules. I want to know how you see that in particular. From what I hear you say, you're actually saying what Mr. Munro said, that this bill is a set-up for failure, because you're saying all these things are not in place and it's open to all sorts of interpretations.

So one thing is the black bear and the other is just how successful this bill is going to be if it stays as it is.

Ms White: I think there's an opportunity with this committee to change the bill, and that's why we're here: to say some aspects of this bill need to be changed to give Parliament - not all parties - the ability to address this situation. This is an all-party problem. This is an all-government problem. This is an everybody problem. We all have to buy into it. So this is the time when we can recommend to government that particular changes need to be made to give Parliament the tools actually to work with this piece of legislation and deliver a good endangered species program.

About the black bear, it is not endangered. The grizzly bear is listed as threatened, I believe.

But you are referring, I think, to the trade in bear galls. Our organization has been doing quite a substantial amount of work in that area. It's quite a complicated issue. I would be happy to send you all kinds of information about it. We have booklets and all sorts of things that talk about it.

At present North American black bears are not endangered, but bear populations around the world are. Bear populations around the world are perceived as a pool of a resource, so to speak, for their parts, in which Canada plays a part and in which Asia plays a part. We're both players in it. We supply them, they demand them. It's a two-way process.

It really doesn't relate to this, because they're not endangered. But certainly the grizzly bear's travels between America and two provinces within Canada puts that animal in different statuses as it moves through its normal course of events through the day or through the week or however far it travels.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Steckle: In listening to the previous witnesses and in listening to you and looking at some of the material you've given us, I find you diametrically opposed in your concerns versus the concerns of the forestry industry. I suppose taking to the extreme the view you hold about the protection of animals...hearing many other witnesses, we find you share the same view, that we haven't gone nearly far enough on habitat protection and those issues. But given that we would put teeth into the legislation where that would take place, where do you anticipate the funds would come? Obviously some funding would have to be found to compensate people where certainly individuals are affected and where communities are affected by some of the actions.

You have taken some very strong stands against the fur trade. You've taken some very strong stands against the sport hunting community. Would you see all sport hunting...and the preservation of all species forever and the non-taking of any of these species for any reasons at all? There has to be a balance, and somehow.... What is your real goal? Is it to protect endangered species or is to protect all species at all costs to all people?

Ms White: You've asked me two extremes. I get asked whether they are endangered. I can't talk about any species unless they're endangered. I say to people that I think it's a very costly process to wait until they're endangered to deal with them. What I'm interested in, from the point of view of our organization, is to stop that from happening, and that deals with habitat in Canada. About 80% of the animals and plants that are endangered in this country are endangered because of habitat, and it's a big consideration. I understand that there's a debate about the scope in which the federal government is willing to be involved, but at least on the areas where you are ready to be involved you should have habitat protection, because that's what's needed.

.1150

In terms of the payment of it, in this particular venue governments are very short of money. I live in a province in which natural resources has been cut back by 40%, and that includes employees. There's basically nobody to do the work now and we have to come up with some pretty creative ways of addressing this stuff.

Some of the recommendations I have at the very end, not with regard to the bill, are on how to begin to address that. We do need to reach out to provincial governments and territorial governments and try to share in the responsibility. We do need to reach out to municipal governments because that's where they deliver the land, that's where they deliver the land-based issues. So we need to do all of that; we need to cooperate.

I sit on all kinds of committees with all kinds of people who don't agree with me. There are certain things we agree on and certain things we don't agree on and we can come together on those we do agree on and actually begin to look at how things can be funded in a creative way or how we can share collectively in the cost of it.

Mr. Steckle: I personally am committed to the objectives set out in this bill, but I have a real difficulty when it comes to the commitment we have to the bill and its intent and trying to realize that there are constraints not only at the federal level but at the provincial level, the municipal level, and all levels, including the personal level.

Ms White: The fact that we have that many endangered species costs us all. Unless we put something in place that's actually going to rectify that situation, we're going to be faced with those costs anyway. We're going to have to deal with them. We either say we don't care about the 275 species going extinct because we can't afford to do it, or we say we need to take a look at a piece of legislation that begins to back that process up so that we don't have 275 endangered species.

How do we come to that determination? I think the advance review is a good process. That brings the forestry industry, mining, petroleum, conservationists, and people who want forests for different reasons, non-consumptive use, together at the table around a project to talk about how that's to be dealt with. That's the least expensive way of dealing with it and I think it's one of the best ways. One of the big holes in this piece of legislation is that it doesn't build in a process that collectively brings people to the table before there's been a big expenditure of money, both on the part of government and on the part of industry.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I probably can guess your answer to this, but the previous witnesses said that thousands of people will lose their jobs and whole communities will close because of this particular legislation and the way it's worded, and I'm wondering if you can make a comment on that.

Ms White: That is always an issue. It is always something we face as collective people in Canada, with all the various issues we deal with. Most of the issues I deal with deal with people's jobs. That's why I think the advance review is such a powerful tool with this piece of legislation; it brings the people who are directly affected and those people who have opinions beyond being directly affected to the table to talk about how a process is going to come into place that mitigates against further endangering the species that are in trouble in the area in which the project is taking place.

I would say that the advance review could actually be used much beyond those sorts of parameters in a more creative way to bring communities together about how they want to deal with the broader habitat questions. Without that process, we're going to have a piece of legislation in which we're going to have people who don't want to lose their jobs and people who don't want the trees to be cut down and people who want the mining because it has jobs and people who don't want their community to have the results of that. We're going to have all of that, and to some extent we are going to be faced with that anyway for a period of time until we get through dealing with some process to deal with the species here.

.1155

But I think if we put in the legislation a mechanism by which people, when other problems come up, when other situations come up, can come together at the table and talk about it together, I would hazard a guess that we could actually come up with some pretty creative solutions.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Their situation was focused mostly on British Columbia, and this legislation covers about 2% of the land mass in British Columbia. So talking specifically about this legislation, is that going to result in thousands of jobs and whole communities being closed down?

Ms White: No, not as I read it, because we're talking about a very narrow look at land. We're talking about a very narrow interpretation of federal land. I actually don't know how many jobs would be involved.

I think what we dealt with in the task force throughout the entire time was this dreadful fear of what happened in the States. That's been a negative part of the endangered species legislation in the States, in terms of Canada actually getting something on the books.

We had Don Barry come up from the United States to talk about what was good and what was bad about the endangered species legislation, and he said the one really negative thing, certainly around private land, is no incentive for actually buying into a program. So we talked about a whole bunch of incentives for doing that with private landowners. But I would hazard a guess we could extend that to the forestry industry and other consumptive groups.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But this legislation is not like the American legislation in that respect.

Ms White: No, absolutely not.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think that is something that has to be pointed out.

Ms White: But what I heard today was what I heard in the task force, this fear that this legislation was like the American legislation, when in fact it's not at all like the American legislation. One of the reasons why is with the listing in the United States, when you list you have automatic prohibition, not only directly but on habitat.

In Canada we decided that created a very big barrier to getting animals and plants listed. What we wanted to do was get them listed from a biological point of view. Then you look at what you need to do from a biological point of view to deal with them. Then you take it to the political forum. You say okay, people, these are our options, what are we going to do about it? What is the political will here actually to do something about it?

That's the process that is quite different from that in the United States. In the task force we talked a lot about not direct consultation with private landowners but a whole variety of types of programs. In fact, there's this - I don't know whether anybody has seen it - keystone dialogue in the States, one of the things around the private landownership problem in the States. They actually held a dialogue on how to come to some resolution on that. They have a number of different sorts of programs outlined there, if anybody is interested in it.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We also have a history in Canada of working with private landowners and private landowners being very much involved in conservation programs and very supportive of them. I find it very disturbing when people come in and are using extreme examples that don't apply to this legislation. I wonder how we communicate to individuals and groups out there that this is legislation different from the American legislation. Just because it says ``endangered species'' on it...you can't judge the legislation by the title of the legislation, and perhaps they have to take a look at what is actually in the legislation before they make some of these outlandish claims.

Ms White: It's just going to take a bit of time and a building up of trust. Ultimately all of us on the committee, the task force....

Interestingly, I come from a very different background from most of the industry types who sat on the task force, but there was a fair level of trust there on all the issues we're talking about. When people got to the table they were pretty open about this stuff.

I think it's going to take time. There's all this stuff being imported from the United States into the Canadian situation, and we're not doing what they're doing. We have a different piece of legislation. I think it can be improved and we can move forward in some areas of it to help make it clear for everybody.

.1200

One thing that industry talked about a lot in the task force was not being able to understand the process. One of the things is a simple message. At least let us know what the parameters are. We don't want any surprises. We want to know the answer so that we know simply what the process is. The more we can do that with this piece of legislation, the more tools we can put collectively into people's hands to actually sit down and talk about the stuff, the more the legislation will work and the more we'll begin to take away all the fears we heard from people sitting at the table.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We were told by the Cattlemen's Association that if they inadvertently let their herd out to graze and destroyed a nesting area, they could spend more time in jail than if they had committed murder.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I think there's another group coming in here, so maybe you can answer that in the next round.

We also have Ms Shelagh MacDonald from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Perhaps she would like to make a presentation.

Ms Shelagh MacDonald (Program Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies): I don't have a lot to say and I don't want to repeat what a lot of other people have said. I know you've heard from a lot of conservation groups. I support a lot of what Liz has already said, so I won't go into great detail.

I'm with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. We represent over 110 humane societies, SPCAs and other animal welfare organizations in Canada.

We're very pleased that the government is moving ahead with legislation to protect endangered and threatened species. We think it's important to regulate such protection. Some of the comments from the forestry industry were that we should leave it to the people and let the people do the right thing, but that doesn't always work when economic concerns are going to outweigh environmental concerns. So I think it's very important that we have legislation that will provide real protection for the species and that will maintain the biodiversity of our country, which is so important to our environment.

Of course, it's also important to empower individuals, industries and individual landowners to do their part to help protect species, but I think it's very important that we have strong legislation.

I concur with a lot of Liz's points and some of the concerns she raised, specifically regarding the ultimate decision, regarding listing being made by the minister, and many other points in the bill in which decisions would be made at a political level rather than taking recommendations at the scientific level from COSEWIC.

I won't go into any more detail. I support the points Liz has made regarding habitat protection, listing and the exemptions for automatic protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. We'll have a very fast round, starting with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Perhaps you could comment on the emergency powers of the minister. We hear about the potential to affect private land. We know federal land in British Columbia is something less than 2% - perhaps it's only 1% in British Columbia - but there was some concern, at least under the emergency powers section, that regardless of whether there is....

We don't have any endangered species legislation in British Columbia. Despite the province signing this accord or whatever, looking at the political agenda of the provincial government in British Columbia, I don't see it bringing in any endangered species legislation in the short term. So in the B.C. context there would be no provincial legislation.

How this might affect it, do you see...provincial landowners, perhaps an industrial park being put on hold or whatever, and the public being concerned that in effect, from the federal level by designation and so on and emergency power with the minister, they could have their land rezoned by edict from Ottawa. This is instead of it going through a local process.

.1205

For instance, consider industrial land that's going to now develop its third phase. It's within the current zoning of what's acceptable. But now it's found that their phase three of their industrial land is now on the fly zone of some bird. There are a few nests there, as well as over on federal land. Maybe there's a military base next door, an airport or whatever.

Maybe you can just describe your interpretation of the bill in that part.

Ms White: To some degree, I don't understand the concern. The emergency order is when there is an imminent threat to the survival of a species. We're not talking about just any old endangered species on the property. Let's say those are the last ones, and let's say some development is happening. Then there's an ability to deal with it through an emergency order.

There are all kinds of built-in reviews around that emergency order. It isn't in perpetuity. You then have to get through the process of actually looking at the species and then developing a recovery plan if there is a reason to develop one to recover the species.

So I'm not sure what the concern is, given that it basically deals only with imminent threats of survival.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. Mr. Knutson.

Ms White: I'd like to say one last thing with regard to this discussion around the bear. I think it's the one example that shows us how an animal can be in different locations in a relatively short period of time and protected in some places but not others.

Certainly if the committee is at all looking at the issue of international species that cross borders, I would suggest that this would be one area in which regulations must - not ``may'' - be addressed. I think it's one area in which provincial governments simply cannot deliver: beyond their own borders.

Mr. Knutson: Actually, I found something. You heard the forester, Mr. Munro, say that, pretty close to verbatim, the American piece of legislation is identical in terms of a citizen's right to sue and go to court. You're saying it's not so, is that correct?

Ms White: A citizen's right to sue is similar to that of the Ontario legislation, as I understand it. I don't know of a single group in Ontario that has sued, not one. The threshold one has to get over is just enormous.

Mr. Knutson: That was my point to Mr. Munro, but he didn't seem to accept it.

I'm just wondering if you could provide me with a reference to an article that compares the American legislation with the Ontario one on the whole issue of a citizen's rights to sue.

Ms White: Sure.

Mr. Knutson: We're going out west, where this issue may come up again in the last week in January, so I would need this -

Ms White: Oh yes, we could get that for you within the next week.

Mr. Knutson: Please send it to the clerk's attention.

Ms White: Sure, that's the Ontario legislation. Do you want various types of legislation that has citizen suits in it?

Mr. Knutson: This is specifically around the issue of citizen suits, because it seems to be setting off a lot of alarm bells. If we can do something to -

Ms White: We had some significant discussion on the task force about citizen suits. I don't know that we actually ultimately came to a final resolution on it. I think there was still some discomfort on the part of industry.

Mr. Knutson: Apparently there is.

Ms White: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth: I just have one last comment.

You said you were looking for the federal government to take some action under its international powers beside this legislation as to whether a species is endangered or not, such as the trading in bear parts, which is really an issue in British Columbia. You think we should look at the moral and political issues and ask whether this should be allowed to happen particularly with the oriental communities on the Pacific Rim.

The trading in bear parts is generally seen by the public in British Columbia as a very reprehensible and wrong thing to do. Yet the provisions in the Criminal Code and so on against that seem to be very weak. There was quite a public outcry about the small fine being provided for an offender. It was almost like it was part of the licence fee to carry on their activity.

.1210

So you're pointing out something else that society might decide it doesn't want to happen, whether the species is endangered or not. Perhaps you're saying we need some other legislation to prohibit certain reprehensible trade practices internationally.

Ms White: The thing with the bear issue is that it is a provincially regulated species. Provincial governments need to address those very issues within their own provinces, but each province recognizes that these things travel. Just because you protect your own species and manage it to the nth degree doesn't mean you are excluded from the global community whereby these things are moving all over the place.

I think with the introduction of WAPPRIITA and the regulations, you'll see the level of the fines going up, at least with regard to what's leaving the country. And this may be possible interprovincially once the provinces sign on.

One individual was caught with one bear gall at Pearson International Airport, was fined $5,000 and did two days in jail.

We may find that the fines change, but it's a global problem. It's one of those things that I believe the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna will be dealing with.

But a number of federal issues are coming up with regard to this about which I would be very interested in talking to this committee, with regard to personal baggage exemptions at the border and a variety of other things that allow people to carry these products across the border. We need to begin to tie all the loopholes down, provincially, federally and internationally, when it comes to these sorts of products.

Mr. Forseth: We just had testimony this morning from communities in the north. They said they wanted to be able to continue to trade in bear parts. They talked about harvesting their quota of polar bears. And if the polar bear's going to be killed, then they want to maximize the economic benefit, which includes, I suppose, selling bear parts internationally.

Ms White: I would say that there are some communities in the north, and other communities that aren't just in the north, that want to sell these products.

I have a letter from Treaty No. 8 in the north, which is having this very discussion. They're very concerned about the impact on the total bear population with the sale of galls. There has been substantial discussion within that organization in terms of the impact and whether it's worth it to sell the product.

It's one of those discussions that this community has to have. We've been sending information. We need to take the opportunity to go up to visit them and talk to them about it, but it's not a monolithic decision in that community either. There has been some discussion. There are divergent opinions among a number of aboriginal groups around the issue of the trade in animal parts.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Ms MacDonald, Ms White, I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk to you again. It's a rather difficult and in-depth discussion that we have here. You can see the task we have ahead of us.

Thank you very much.

Ms White: Thank you.

Ms MacDonald: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page