Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, January 27, 1997

.1630

[English]

The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The committee welcomes everybody in this room, and in particular, on behalf of B.C. Hydro, David Avren, Roy Staveley and Al Wright; on behalf of the Forest Alliance of B.C., Jack Munro; and on behalf of the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, Kim Pollock.

We are resuming our work. We have a long list of witnesses, and two witnesses have been added at 5:30 p.m. upon their request, which came in at the last moment. Those are the Fisheries Council of B.C. and the Sport Fishing Institute. We would like to keep to our schedule as closely as we can, and we seek your cooperation. As agreed with our clerk, you will have 15 minutes. If we do that properly, there will be time for a good round of questions and answers.

Without any further delay, I invite Mr. Avren to take the floor, or whoever wishes to start first. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Roy Staveley (Acting Senior Vice-President, Human Resources, Aboriginal Relations and Environment, B.C. Hydro): Good afternoon. I'm an acting senior vice-president with B.C. Hydro.

On behalf of B.C. Hydro, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present an electrical utility perspective on Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act.

I have two gentlemen with me. David Avren is legal counsel for B.C. Hydro, and Mr. Al Wright is an engineer and consultant from Portland, Oregon. Mr. Wright's presentation will focus on the United States Endangered Species Act and the ESA's impact on hydroelectric utilities in the Pacific northwest. He will be describing not only the impacts but some of the lessons he has learned from his experience, which might be helpful to our debate in Canada. He previously served as executive director for the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee. He has served as well as director of the Oregon Water Resources Commission and as the regional coordinator for the three mid-Columbia public utility districts in the state of Washington.

Overall, B.C. Hydro supports the purpose of Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. However, we have a number of concerns with the bill and propose revisions that we feel better reflect a sustainable approach to protecting endangered species. We have a detailed written submission, which we just presented to you this afternoon.

B.C. Hydro is a provincial crown corporation and the third-largest electrical utility in Canada. We serve 1.4 million customers in an area containing 92% of B.C.'s population. Approximately90% of B.C. Hydro's electricity is generated from 32 hydroelectric sites involving 61 dams in43 locations.

As a major contributor to the economy of B.C., B.C. Hydro recognizes the linkages and trade-offs between its activities and the environment. B.C. Hydro manages its facilities, including the associated large reservoirs, under a variety of conditions from drought to flood, during peaks and valleys in power demand and consumption, and with a multi-use focus that includes flood control, fish and wildlife concerns, and recreation values as well as power generation. Our corporate decisions reflect not only technical and economic considerations, but environmental and social ones as well.

The electric utility industry is undergoing fundamental change. A more competitive utility environment is emerging. The corporation is also facing public and regulatory pressure to keep costs at the lowest possible level.

Despite these challenges, B.C. Hydro is committed to attaining sustainable utilization of resources, including finding ways to optimize the operation of the hydroelectric system and to minimize impacts on the natural environment.

.1635

Partnerships are an essential part of B.C. Hydro's strategy, which is to achieve an acceptable balance between our role as an electricity producer and our responsibility to protect the natural environment. For example, B.C. Hydro is undergoing a review of water licences at all its existing facilities to ensure that the environmental, social, and economic values are properly considered.

We are working together with government, the public, communities, first nations, and other key stakeholders to develop water use plans that will balance the need for power production with important fish habitat protection and other water uses. I would like to touch on six key points in this regard.

The first is hydroelectric utility issues. Because Bill C-65 covers aquatic species whether or not on federal land, demand owner-operators are likely to be the most affected group.

Numerous dams exist in Canada for purposes other than hydroelectric generation, such as flood control, irrigation, drinking water supply, etc. The wording of the proposed legislation may significantly affect almost all aspects of B.C. Hydro's operations, including hydroelectric and thermal generation, right-of-way maintenance, and waste disposal.

For example, hydroelectric generators have a very limited ability to alter their operations without losing generation. Constraints on operations reduce our ability to store water or to generate efficiently, and no easy technical fix is available to hydroelectric generators to maintain electrical production in the face of such additional constraints or requirements.

Because of this we are naturally concerned that the Endangered Species Protection Act may have costly implications for B.C. Hydro and our customers. Taken to an extreme, of course, the act could even force abandonment and removal of existing generating facilities, resulting in enormous costs being imposed with little being accomplished for the endangered species.

In addition, the net result could be adverse to other components of the environment. The demand for electricity must still be met. The lost electricity generation would have to be made up from new sources and facilities, and much of the replacement generation would have its own environmental impacts.

We are also concerned about the additional new legislation and regulations being developed on the basis of a thorough review of all existing provincial and federal legislation that relates to species and habitat protection. To avoid duplication, overlap, and confusion, there should be an effort to integrate and coordinate existing and new environmental legislation.

The protection of biodiversity is an important value. However, it needs to be considered along with societal needs and values in order to receive broad public support. While good science must be a precondition for all action under the act, it should consider all social, economic, and other environmental impacts to achieve the common goal of conservation and protection of endangered species within the principles of sustainable resource development.

There must be a biological emphasis in determining the status of species, and Canada Endangered Species Protection Act implementation should be scrutinized for social priorities and should be subject to social cost benefit analysis. Even listing of species, which in effect establishes new offences, will have economic impacts and should be mindful of these considerations.

The next issue I'd like to touch on is public involvement. B.C. Hydro agrees that Canadians should have opportunities to share knowledge and participate in efforts to protect and recover species at risk. The most effective way of doing this is by maintaining an open and transparent process. We feel the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act needs more provisions for consultation with affected parties throughout the process, from listing of species to preparation and implementation of recovery plans.

The protection of species at risk will best be attained through partnerships with key stakeholders. However, as currently written, the proposed legislation results in duplication of federal, provincial, and territorial regulatory authorities. This would be inconsistent with the harmonization and intergovernmental approaches to environmental protection or the national accord, and will likely result in jurisdictional disputes, duplication, poor enforcement and administration, public confusion, and inefficient allocation of scarce resources.

B.C. Hydro supports harmonization of the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act with existing provincial regulatory requirements to ensure complementary rather than conflicting legislation.

We also propose that the legislation state that species recovery plans should be based on balanced, reasonable measures based on the principles of sustainable development. We feel recovery plans must be effective if they are comprehensive, scientifically based, least-cost plans that consider socioeconomic impacts as well. Recovery plans also need to provide compensation measures for individuals, businesses, or communities that will be adversely affected economically.

.1640

We need to look at some of these in the context of the experience with the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The U.S. introduced endangered species legislation over 20 years ago. There is a great opportunity for us to learn from the United States experience with this particular act.

I will ask Mr. Wright to provide some insight into the experiences of the hydroelectric utilities in the U.S. Pacific northwest and to offer a number of lessons we in Canada should perhaps consider.

Mr. Al Wright (Consultant, B.C. Hydro): Thank you, Roy, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

I have presented you with a short brief. I will just barely touch on some of the points, because I'd like to spend my allotted time on the things I've listed that I think we can learn from the U.S. experience.

The Chairman: Your allotted time is within the 15 minutes allotted to your group, so you have another good six minutes.

Mr. Wright: Okay. Thank you, sir.

As I've stated in my testimony, we really started working on the Columbia River declining salmon population issue in 1980, with the passage of a very specialized federal act that dealt exclusively with the northwest and the Columbia River drainage. That act included a fish restoration provision.

For 15 years we worked on salmon restoration under the provisions of that act, with the idea of being able to avoid the rigours of the Endangered Species Act. We found we were experiencing some success in the middle to late 1980s, but by the early 1990s we again were experiencing dramatic declines in Columbia River salmon populations, for a whole host of reasons, which I won't get into now.

Basically, despite our efforts, the Endangered Species Act became a reality. We did get petitions and listings, and it resulted in substantial impacts. I'd like to touch on those impacts and on what I think the results and benefits of those are.

We now are faced with at least five if not more dams and run-of-the-river hydro plants that are threatened to be decommissioned and breached. Even though none of those actions have been taken, they are in various pieces of recovery plan format and they are being heavily discussed in federal state forums.

We have reregulated the U.S. Columbia River storage system, which has resulted in something in excess of 1,300 megawatts of firm energy being lost as well as a number of other related power production components being lost. In addition, we have made serious capital investment in modifying structures to try to benefit fish.

The bottom line of all that is we are presently spending about $435 million a year through the Bonneville Power Administration on the Endangered Species Act in the Columbia River, as well as trying to do good for other species that are not listed to keep ahead of the game so we don't get additional listings. Right now that $435 million a year has a six-year limitation on it, ending in 2001.

As for the results of ESA, as you've heard, in the United States we have about 967 species on the threatened and/or endangered list; about 421 candidates that are serious additional listings; and about 4,000 ``species of concern'', which is a definition of lesser concern under the Endangered Species Act.

Since 1973 only 22 species have been removed from the list and only seven were recovered from protection to be able to actually de-list the population. I point this out because I think this is a major failure in the United States experience, and I believe it's for two reasons.

One, our act does not lend itself to an emphasis on recovery, which is essential. Secondly, in the bulk of those 967 listings, it did not provide any way for the federal government to spend money on recovery. On a few rare occasions, like the one I'm outlining on the Columbia, there's been a tremendous amount of money spent. But across the 967 species, in many cases little or nothing has been committed in the way of resources to recover the animals.

.1645

In the Columbia...since 1991, when we spent these large sums of money...basically we don't know what are the improvements resulting from that yet. One, they are still fairly recent activities, and two, we know we are experiencing, west-coast-wide, some serious ocean conditions that we can't do anything about. If and when those conditions change and become more favourable to the cold water species in the northwest, then we may see some incremental results from our activities that right now are being masked, we think, by that whole ocean experience.

Turning to what we've learned from the Endangered Species Act - and I sat through your testimony this morning, and I find it fascinating that you are obviously discussing some of the very same issues - by and large, priority one is insisting on good science. As you heard in some of the discussion this morning, recovery plan is the name of the game in good science. I guess I would touch on basically three parts of that.

First, in listing the marine...there's this whole species, subspecies, distinct population segment et al. I would urge you, as you rewrite your act, as you move down that ladder of concern for a subspecies versus concern for a distinct population segment, to add more and more rigour in your piece of legislation, because species and subspecies are surrounded by a pretty large body of science relative to what they are and how you determine them. When you get down to distinct population segments it becomes much more vague and much more subjective.

So as you put conditions on the distinct population segment, evolutionarily significant units - which is a term we use in the United States and I urge you not to ever use it - it is very vague and extremely hard to try to put a boundary around that so that you can make a determination.

As I said, the real game here is the recovery plan. If you're going to deal with designation of critical habitat, deal with critical habitat as a subportion of recovery planning. In our act, critical habitat is a designation that's made prior to recovery planning. If you don't make critical habitat designations in the context of recovery planning, you cannot make trade-offs. For instance, on the Columbia River we ended up with the entire Columbia River designated as a critical habitat. A designation that vast and that encompassing can't be dealt with.

So I urge you to take critical habitat planning - and it's not a bad concept - into the context of recovery planning, where you can make the trade-offs, some of which were talked about this morning.

Cost-effectiveness is a requirement that I think you can legitimately put on recovery planning. Saving endangered species is not an excuse to wait. A cost-effective provision is reasonable and prudent in a recovery plan where you're making trade-offs.

In closing, I would like to say that I would strongly encourage you to write your act around cooperation, joint participation, not litigation and regulation. The two best salmon stories we have on the lower Columbia are the Willamette River spring chinook and the Hanford Reach fall chinook in the state of Washington, both of which were developed without the involvement of the Endangered Species Act; both were developed as a cooperative effort between the private sector and federal, state, and tribal governments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wright, for your most valuable advice, which we appreciate very much. It seems to me that one of the major points you make is that we should make sure that nothing gets on the endangered list, that we prevent that from happening. In that case we will benefit all.

It's very good of the people from B.C. Hydro to have thought of bringing Mr. Wright to these committee hearings. My colleagues and I appreciate it very much.

We turn now to the Forest Alliance. I welcome Mr. Munro to the committee. It's nice to see you again, Mr. Munro. We haven't seen you since our meeting in Winnipeg in October, when you asked for my resignation from the royal commission on forests and sustainable development, which was good advice, I'm sure, and which I'm still considering. Don't think I have easily forgotten your good advice.

.1650

Mr. Jack Munro (Chairman, Forest Alliance of British Columbia): The only thing wrong with the advice is you haven't accepted it yet.

The Chairman: I might still. Who knows, maybe in a moment of lucidity I might. The floor is yours.

Mr. Munro: Well hang around.

I'm here as chairman of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia. The Forest Alliance is a citizens' organization. Our role in life is to find a balance between the environment and continuing to have a forest-based economy in British Columbia and in Canada.

I would like to start by emphasizing how important my organization believes wildlife conservation is. There is more diversity in wildlife here in British Columbia than in any other part of Canada. Maintaining that diversity is one of the single most important environmental objectives.

Five years ago the Forest Alliance developed a set of principles of sustainable forestry, and wildlife conservation measures are an important part of them. All our member companies signed these principles, and they continue to file public reports every year on their compliance. We're also currently helping to fund two major conservation projects, one focusing on the Vancouver Island marmot and the other on a bald eagle habitat in the Squamish Valley. This fall the Forest Alliance will sponsor a large forum on sustainable fisheries and conservation of fish stocks.

I think it's important for you to keep in mind just how much is already going on here in British Columbia in the area of wildlife conservation. And I don't just mean voluntary codes of conduct and specific habitat enhancement projects. We have some huge pieces of legislation and other government initiatives. For the forest sector, the most important initiative is the forest practices code. It's a detailed set of regulations that governs every aspect of forestry in this province. It has dramatically changed the way operations are carried out. Comparative studies have found the code to be among the strictest and most comprehensive sets of forest regulations in the world. A great deal of the code is designed to protect biodiversity.

We also have a forest renewal plan, through which billions of dollars will be invested in forest and ecosystem health. Many of these investments are aimed at restoring an enhanced wildlife habitat. We have the protected area strategy, which is a government policy to which we're setting aside millions of hectares of parks and other protected areas. By the turn of the century 12% of British Columbia will have protected status. That's an obvious benefit from the standpoint of biodiversity.

I've heard a lot of people in the last few months refer to the fact that only four provinces have endangered species legislation and that British Columbia is not one of them. What I've just told you should help you understand that that's nonsense. It may be only four provinces that have something they call the Endangered Species Act, but that doesn't mean that only four provinces are doing anything to protect species at risk. I'm proud of British Columbia's record in this area, although sometimes I am frustrated by the bureaucratic excesses of some of our current legislation. I can hardly think we're doing a worse job of protecting biodiversity than any other province.

Having said that, the Forest Alliance supports the federal government's effort to introduce endangered species legislation. We support all reasonable efforts to prevent human-caused extinction when it's feasible to do so. There is no question that's a commendable objective. But I think part of the reason many Canadians are quick to support anything called an Endangered Species Act is that they simply don't see any downside. They aren't aware of any negative consequences for themselves, at least none that are immediate or direct. Most Canadians, after all, live in cities. They're pretty far removed from the areas where you're likely to find threatened wildlife. And most Canadians are pretty far removed in their day-to-day lives from forestry and mining and agriculture and other land-based industries.

The members of my organization, and I'm talking about the more than 10,000 individual members throughout British Columbia, aren't so far from the issue. A great many of them live in resource communities like Fort Nelson, Bella Coola, Quesnel, Port McNeill, Cranbrook, Nelson, and so on. A lot of them work directly within the forest sector, and all of them know how important the forest sector is to the economy of British Columbia and Canada. They know it's a sector that depends on access to a land base. That's why those of us in the forestry sector pay such close attention to any new legislation that affects land use.

.1655

I realize that this legislation is intended to apply primarily to federal lands, and I realize that federal lands aren't very extensive in British Columbia. But we have an accord with the provinces, I understand, calling for complementary legislation across the country. Whatever bill eventually gets passed by the federal government will likely be a model for provincial acts here in British Columbia and the other provinces. We need to get it right.

In many parts of B.C. the forest sector is already coping with serious fibre shortages. There have been mill shut-downs already, and there's a possibility of more in the near future. There were a lot of people who had a pretty lean Christmas this year in Golden, British Columbia, for example, because of a shut-down. I would hate to see that situation repeated in more towns across the country this December.

Before I get into some of the substantial concerns of the bill, I want to emphasize some concerns about these consultations. I know you've been receiving a lot of letters from other groups in British Columbia on this particular issue. I raised it in December when I appeared before you on behalf of the Forest Sector Advisory Council. What it comes down to is that it's people in rural communities who are usually most directly and most seriously affected by land use legislation. A two-stop all-urban consultation process might be adequate for some bills, but not for this one.

I believe you have an obligation to visit at least some of the resource towns in Canada before this bill is passed. I can certainly give you a list of more than 100 of those towns in British Columbia. If you can't visit those towns, you should at least extend the consultation process and make major efforts to get information to them. If you're surprised by how much concern there is here in British Columbia, I'd encourage you to extend your travel schedule a little further to find out why.

You've already heard today something about the impact of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, particularly for our neighbours in the Pacific northwest. I was at another set of hearings in Winnipeg last fall. Many of the witnesses were from forest-dependent towns in the Pacific northwest. They told stories about the tremendous hardships, dying towns, lost jobs, families under stress that sometimes led to violence and suicide. I know that the chairman of this committee heard those witnesses too. I'm sure their stories have an impact on you too, Charles, as much as the impact they had on me.

I'm not blaming the U.S. Endangered Species Act for all the problems facing the forest sector in the Pacific northwest, and I'm not suggesting that the impact of this bill would necessarily be as severe. But there's no question that efforts to protect threatened species have an impact on land use and resource industries.

A new spotted owl management plan was established in the Pacific northwest in 1994. Of the more than 24 million acres in those states covered by plan, less than 6 million acres are eventually potentially available for timber harvesting. The largest single-use category, covering more than7 million acres, is late successional reserves, which are set aside as habitat for owls and old-growth species. In fact, most timber harvesting is restricted to what are called matrix areas. They are made up of less than 4 million acres, not all of which is suitable for commercial harvesting or is even forested.

Harvesting levels have failed to stabilize at even the modest levels promised under this plan. Mill closures and job losses have continued.

I think there are some lessons to be learned from the U.S. experience, lessons about potential impacts of endangered species legislation, lessons about which approaches have an impact we can live with and which don't.

I want to talk to you now about some of the approaches in the current bill with which we have concerns. All of those concerns are outlined in more detail in our brief. I'd like to refer you to a few of the most significant ones.

Firstly, you have an approach in this bill that doesn't pay nearly enough attention to social and economic impacts. I'm not suggesting that the protection of threatened species isn't worth paying a price, but I am saying that we should assess that price and be sure we come up with a fair way of deciding who pays it. The furthest this bill goes is the reference in clause 38 to the need for an evaluation of costs and benefits of research and management activities. Presumably that includes social and economic costs such as lost jobs if timber harvest is no longer allowed in a particular area. But where something as crucial as people's jobs and way of life is concerned, we should not have to presume anything. The government should have to do much more than merely a general evaluation of costs and benefits.

.1700

The Canadian Endangered Species Coalition talks in its material about this legislation costing $10 million annually. But in arriving at this figure, the coalition considered only the government's actual implementation costs, not the cost to people in rural communities. Is this the approach that the government might also take to such an evaluation?

Even if social and economic costs are evaluated, where is the requirement that they be taken into account in making implementation decisions? There should be an explicit requirement for an assessment of social and economic impacts of both recovery and management plans. It should have to be carried out in consultation with local residents and other affected interests, and the government should be required before proceeding with implementation to assure itself that the impact is reasonable.

There should also be compensation for communities adversely affected by recovery plans. I see no logical reason whatsoever for expecting rural communities to bear more than their fair share of the costs of protecting biodiversity.

Secondly, the approach set out in this bill is in a lot of ways too loose and imprecise. We set out a number of concerns of this sort in our written brief, but I'll refer you to just one: the question of geographically distinct populations.

This makes the definition of wildlife species far too broad. Any population by definition is geographically distinct to some extent. Our objectives should be to protect biodiversity and prevent human-caused extinctions, not to prevent any and all shifts in a particular species range. Protecting geographically distinct populations would give a tool to groups that want to use this bill for other purposes, like shutting down forest operations in particular areas.

Thirdly, we have concerns that the legislation places far too much emphasis on a confrontational approach to species protection. We've learned in B.C. that land and resource use decisions are complex and are best made through broad consultation and consensus.

Our current land use planning processes are good examples of this. Late last year we reached a consensus on protected areas for the lower mainland through one of these processes. It was a decision made by industry, labour, communities, and environmentalists working together. It's a decision that has strong support from stakeholders with a wide variety of interests. It protects a full range of values and we hope it will provide certainty in land use. This is the sort of cooperative approach that should be promoted by this legislation, not a conflict- and litigation-driven approach like in the current bill.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act also contains a citizen's right to sue. Litigation related to endangered species has been expensive. According to one estimate, there were more than 20 major endangered species lawsuits in the U.S. during the early 1990s. Between 1991 and 1994 activists used the Endangered Species Act and other legislation to block most proposed federal timber sales within the spotted owl's habitat through lawsuits.

Litigation is not an effective way of ensuring that all interests are considered and that all stakeholders will buy into a decision. It's not an effective way of creating certainty in land use or in the allocation of resources for recovery projects. Where protection of threatened species is concerned, we see no place for a citizen's right to sue.

I want to close by saying again how important we believe the task to be that this committee has taken on. I hope you will end your brief visit to British Columbia with a better sense of why the legislation as currently drafted will not work.

I urge you to take a cautious approach, to give this legislation adequate consideration, and most importantly to expand your consultations. Let's be sure we're pursuing the goal of protecting threatened species in a reasonable way. Let's be sure we don't cause unnecessary human suffering while we do it. Let's also make sure we've defined the goal in a sensible way. And let's work towards it constructively rather than resorting to lawsuits.

.1705

I think if these sorts of concerns are properly addressed, you will have a bill that will attract much wider support in rural Canada, in the areas and among the people where most of the implementation will take place. It's only with that kind of support that any endangered species will be successful, if you have the support of the people it's going to affect most. They are not being given an opportunity to appear before you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Munro. We appreciate your intervention.

We now turn to Mr. Pollock.

Mr. Kim Pollock (Director, Environment and Land Use Department, Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Caccia. It's a pleasure again, as always.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to appear here. I represent the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada. It's the largest industrial union in British Columbia and one of Canada's largest industrial unions.

Before I began this job, I was a long-time parliamentary and legislative staff person. So I know, as you do, that legislation of this sort often takes you into the quagmire of competing claims and counter-claims and allegations from scientists and biologists and conservation groups. I know, as you do, that in that territory the howling of the righteous is often indistinguishable from the howling of the damned.

In our search for a firm footing in that kind of environment, IWA Canada, as a social justice organization and one interested in sustainable forestry practices, has come at this legislation from a somewhat different perspective, and that is to apply two tests to it: is the legislation balanced and is the legislation fair? We believe that Bill C-65 actually fails on both counts.

We submit that it fails on the question of balance because in an effort to uphold one value - that of protecting and enhancing biodiversity - it ignores other important values. Those include the need for economic activity, the need for jobs and secure employment, the need for healthy communities, and the need for Canadian export earnings and government revenues. These are all highly important values. Even more important than those is the maintenance of a healthy and sound way of life for thousands of Canadians.

We submit that it fails on fairness because even though the proposed benefits of endangered species legislation are alleged to accrue to all Canadians, the cost and incidences of the legislation are disproportionately borne by small numbers of workers and their families and communities, particularly those who live and work in resource-based communities. We call those folks Canada's ``endangered faces and endangered places'', and they're in need of protection too.

We believe it's really important that if you folks don't take anything else away from your visit to British Columbia, you come up with a clear understanding of what happened with very similar legislation in the timber towns of the Pacific northwest. In those towns some 30,000 jobs were lost as a result of the spotted owl injunction. In those states whole communities were hit and devastated; some were hit hard and still haven't recovered.

In that same instance there was no consideration of social and economic impacts available under the legislation. Under that legislation there was no opportunity for meaningful participation on the part of affected stakeholders - and that includes workers and their communities - in the decision-making process. There was no provision in the American law for redress. There was, in the American law, the same kind of relatively wide-open access to the courts for groups that in the Pacific northwest used the northern spotted owl as basically a means to an end. That end was the anti-logging campaign.

.1710

Yet here we are, sitting here in Canada, with the lesson of what happened in the Pacific northwest, considering a very similar bill. IWA Canada is here on behalf of our 55,000 members across Canada to urge you to seek to avoid what happened in the Pacific northwest and to bring some balance and fairness to the quest for protection of biodiversity in Canada.

To that end I want to make three points.

One, lands and forests in Canada are principally under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It's crucial that there be cooperation with the provinces to enact legislation similar to that whichMr. Munro has described, the B.C. forest practices code.

Combined with other policy and legislative initiatives in British Columbia, the forest practices code is protecting forest biodiversity. In fact I believe, and lots of biologists and scientists and people who work on the ground also believe, there will be a major resurgence in wildlife populations as a result of the code and those other legislative initiatives in British Columbia.

I should warn you that also is being bought not without cost. A recent report on fibre flow, for instance, for the Vancouver forest region, which covers most of coastal British Columbia, indicated that the forest practices code and its other associated legislation will have an 11.2% impact on the annual allowable cut for that region. That means the loss of some 4,000 jobs, without some kind of mitigative effort.

.1715

So it's not as though the British Columbia forest practices code itself is not being bought without cost in terms of jobs in communities, but here in British Columbia we have that kind of legislative packaging in place, and we believe other provinces can and should have similar legislation, depending on their specific circumstances, to protect and enhance biodiversity.

As well, we believe that, as recommended by the Task Force on Endangered Species, there should be cooperation with industry, with workers, and with landowners to anticipate species problems and thus avoid crisis situations before they happen. I would point out some of the cooperative efforts that have taken place in Canada along these lines.

Ducks Unlimited has done a huge amount of voluntary work, particularly out on the prairies, in reproducing, replacing, and enhancing habitat. There's the Vancouver Island marmot project, which has been largely funded by the forest industry in British Columbia. There's also the Brackendale eagle reserve; through our membership in the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, we've been partners in creating a reserve for eagles near Squamish. We've also helped to fund marbled murrelet research on Vancouver Island. And International Forest Products, for instance, has done research into owl habitat.

So there's lots of room to develop cooperative and voluntary actions that will protect habitat and do the job before we reach a crisis situation.

If you're still determined to have endangered species legislation, you have to bring in a bill that's more balanced. That would mean a guarantee of participation in the planning of recovery and management plans for workers and communities. It would mean that in any court action or any action before them, the courts would have to take account of social and economic impacts. You would have to build in the principle of redress for affected workers in the communities. And there should be an end to the wide-open process that basically encourages confrontation and litigation rather than the kind of cooperative measures we've been urging.

So I would say do not, whatever you do, replicate the Pacific northwest experience. Don't try to solve one problem at the price of creating another huge problem, one with huge economic and social costs.

I want to use a bit of my time to respond to something you heard this morning with respect to the Pacific northwest and this idea that the economy of the Pacific northwest now is thriving and doing terrifically. Yes, if you look at the wide region, there has been some degree of economic growth. But if you look at specific communities, not just at the county level but at the specific town level, you will find some of those communities have been seriously devastated and shocked by what's happening, and continue to be.

I should note that the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report - the huge study that was done on the spotted owl plans prior to the imposition of the Clinton plan in the Pacific northwest - noted:

I should add what the B.C. Forest Resources Commission said in its 1991 report:

.1720

The region may be thriving, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been severe and painful dislocation for thousands of people.

It doesn't have to happen. We can design endangered species legislation and measures to protect biodiversity that balance human needs, balance the environmental concerns, and balance our social concerns. That's what we have to do here.

Thank you very much for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pollock. This is very helpful indeed.

We can start a round of questions. We already have a good list, beginning with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): We've heard that there is current discussion about the British Columbia Forest Practices Code. We've heard that there are endangered species implications in the code, and perhaps we can be quite proud of that. I've also heard that the new code is causing lay-offs and employment disruption. After that we hear the political response, which recently seems to be to water down the code.

Is the legislation working in B.C.? Are the endangered species implications of the code working, or are they going to be retreated from because of the unforeseen impact on employment? Then to make the general reference, what lessons can we learn from the current British Columbia Forest Practices Code and the implications of how it's working out for the endangered species legislation we're discussing today?

Mr. Munro: If I can answer part of that, the short answer as to whether the Forest Practices Code and other legislation is working is yes, it is. The problem with it is that there is far too much bureaucracy and reporting in attempts to get cutting permits. Usually you need about two years in advance to have a cutting permit so you can plan your roads and change where you are going to log depending on weather, markets, and the rest of it. The bureaucracy that's tied to the major legislation has almost ground it to a halt. It's not working.

The discussions taking place at the present time are not to change the substantial effects of any of the pieces of legislation, which we've sorely needed in British Columbia. It's to ease up on some of the bureaucracy, to get back to having two-year cutting permits instead of leaning on the cabinet minister's door waiting for your turn to get one. The legislation, when it's cleaned up, will have the same effect as far as the environment, species, and everything else are concerned, but it will take some of the bureaucracy out of it.

Mr. Pollock: If you want to know whether the code will be watered down, for a definitive answer you'd have to talk to the provincial government. But I think you have to separate within the code some of the measures that actually touch on the biophysical nature of the forests, such as the measures that protect biodiversity or riparian zones, and the stuff that is for want of a better word cosmetic, such as visual quality objectives.

It's perfectly conceivable that there will be some bending of the regulations with respect to things like visual quality objectives, adjacency and green-up that don't really affect the biophysical application of the bill, and still maintain the core forest environment measures that ensure the long-term viability of the forests themselves. If you bring in a huge canon of regulations, statute law, and guidelines that has never been tried before, it's simple humility to say after a few years that maybe you got it wrong in a few places.

Mr. Forseth: Could you briefly summarize the positive and negative lessons we can learn from the Forest Practices Code for this endangered species legislation?

Mr. Munro: Too far too quick, I think.

.1725

To put it in perspective, there were 17 major pieces of legislation passed concerning the forests in the past five years. In the previous 100 years there were only 12. So it's a major switch in direction in how we harvest wood. The pendulum never seems to start and come down to the centre and stop. It goes over to the other side and you have to drag it back down to the centre again.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Wright said there's no substitute for good science and I think he had it right. You simply have to go in from a really hard-nosed point of view and evaluate whether it's working or not and what you can do to improve it if it's not.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): This is a question to both Mr. Munro and Mr. Pollock.

Mr. Pollock, you've identified the American act - and similarly, Mr. Munro, in your testimony in Ottawa I think you referred to the American act - as identical. Mr. Pollock, have you read the American act?

Mr. Pollock: Yes.

Mr. Knutson: So you're aware that in Canada a person can bring an action against someone he or she believes to be violating the act only after the minister has been requested to do an investigation and the request has either been unreasonably refused, or there was no report within a reasonable time, or the investigation was unreasonably suspended or unreasonably conducted. In the United States the secretary must be pursuing a court action against the alleged offender or be given 60 days to commence one for a citizen's suit to be prohibited.

I see that as a critical difference between our legislation and their legislation, but I take it you don't. I'm talking about a citizen's right to commence an action.

Mr. Munro: Do you want me to respond?

Mr. Knutson: Sure.

Mr. Munro: I don't know if I said the act is identical or the results are identical.

Mr. Knutson: I remember quite clearly that you referred to it as an identical piece of legislation.

Mr. Munro: All right. Obviously it isn't word for word, but the results certainly would be the same.

I know you heard this morning that in the towns in the Pacific northwest, everything is readjusted and everything is quite fine down there because of some of these court actions. That is absolute nonsense.

My concern with the committee -

Mr. Knutson: That's not the point of my question. My point is that the Canadian law is a much more balanced law. It's much more focused on developing recovery plans in cooperation with -

Mr. Munro: That's where we differ. I don't agree that it's different.

Mr. Knutson: Can I just finish my point? One example of making our law more balanced is the fact that there is a certain test that has to be satisfied before you can bring an action under the Canadian law. It is much stricter, a much higher barrier to cross than in the American law. It is that you have to prove in a court that the minister has acted unreasonably when you've requested him to do so.

There are other examples as well. For example, in Bill C-65 there is no provision for bringing an action against the minister for failure to investigate. The U.S. legislation has specific provisions for bringing an action against the secretary for failure to act. That's another example of differences between the acts. Other differences include the U.S. act referring to critical habitat; ours refers to residence. Those are just some of the differences where I think our law as proposed is a more balanced piece of legislation.

I don't dispute the damage that may have been done to certain American communities under an American law, but I'm not sure of the relevance of that when we have a different piece of legislation here.

Mr. Munro: I guess it's your responsibility to know the exact words in both acts. It's not my responsibility. My point today is -

Mr. Knutson: Your responsibility is to provide accurate testimony.

Mr. Munro: My testimony is that there is no place in courts for civil action when we're dealing with forest policy or endangered species or anything else of that nature. We know the effects. We know how people can get in front of judges. We know the devastating effect of what some of those judges rule. The devastating effect a couple of hundred miles from here is that several communities are boarded up with plywood because citizens have the right to get into court. The same will happen here if we have the same kind of judge.

The wages they talk about down there went from $28 an hour to about $8 an hour. Some people say there's no unemployment. That is absolute nonsense. I think it's the responsibility of this committee. If you can't all go because you don't have a travel budget, for goodness' sake at least send your researchers. There is no panic for this type of legislation, so for goodness' sake, go down and look at the devastating effects that come about because people have the right, by whatever vehicle, to get into court.

.1730

The Chairman: Four members of this committee are from rural areas and certainly can appreciate that from their own experience.

Mr. Pollock, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Pollock: I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Knutson. I don't know whether you are or not, but I'm not evaluating this from the point of view of a lawyer. I'm evaluating it from the point of view of forest workers.

From the point of view of forest workers, this is similar legislation. That is, the American legislation offered no guarantee of participation in the design of recovery plans or management plans. This legislation doesn't either. The American legislation offered no requirement on the part of the government to assess the economic and social impacts. This bill doesn't either. The American legislation didn't offer any redress to affected workers and their families in the communities. This doesn't either.

I'd say, from the point of view of a forest worker, that's pretty similar.

The Chairman: Mr. Pollock, perhaps you might refer to clause 38 in light of what you just said.

Mr. Pollock: I know what clause 38 says, Mr. Caccia, but it certainly doesn't say anything about social and economic impacts on workers or their communities.

The Chairman: It speaks of human activities, and that implies all of what you just said.

Mr. Munro: But you shouldn't have to interpret. It should say what it means.

The Chairman: Human activity means a lot of things. It's a very broad term.

Mr. Munro: It may not mean very much, though, Charles.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, you can finish.

Mr. Knutson: I don't want to belabour the point, but from the point of view of whomever - a forest worker, a lawyer, or a politician - the words in the bill are important and they mean something. When a clause provides that for a Canadian citizen to go to court, they have to pass a certain test, that means something, and what it means is significant. The fact that an individual worker in a logging community might not understand that doesn't negate the fact that it's significant.

To come and make the argument that if we pass this law there's a likelihood that similar occurrences will occur in Canada as have occurred in the United States, when the legislation is in fact quite different.... I find that argument fundamentally weak, and I suggest to you if you want to compare legislation, do it in a broader context and do it with full regard for the words in the act, because that's what's important.

Mr. Pollock: Where's the provision for redress in this bill, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Knutson: In the recovery plan.

Mr. Pollock: Where is it? Show me in the bill where it says redress is available to somebody who's affected by this legislation. Show me where it says that, for instance, a farmer in Saskatchewan or a forest worker on Vancouver Island or a miner in the Northwest Territories has available to him or her or their family or their community some sort of support, some sort of training, some sort of compensation from the Canadian government when they're affected by this bill. Show me where it is.

Mr. Knutson: This came up in Ottawa as well. If you want to make the argument that there should be redress and compensation, fine, make the argument, and I would accept that.

Mr. Pollock: We did.

Mr. Knutson: Fine, I accept that. Does that mean we take a cod worker who may be thrown out of work at the age of 30 and pay him until he retires at the age of 65? I think we would all suggest that would be wasteful and an ineffective use of resources, as Mr. Wright has referred to. Does it mean if you have somebody with a wood lot that you're taking out of use and you're preventing them from logging, maybe you compensate them?

I agree that things have to be reasonable and have to take into account the best way to spend money and resources.

For my final point I'll go back to my main thrust. In Canada there is a history of courts intervening in ministerial discretion, and it's very narrow. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with that part of the law, and I think you would feel far more comfortable with the citizens' actions provisions in this piece of legislation. The courts rarely interfere with a minister's right to act within his or her discretion, as spelled out in similar legislation.

.1735

Mr. Munro: Let me tell you that since I've been around and been a worker, which is kicking the hell out of 65 years, workers have not found comfort in the courts. The injunction isn't meant to drive people back to work or to keep them at work either, but we sure as hell went through that goddamned exercise in this country.

I'm telling you, and I said in my presentation, clause 38 talks about an evaluation of the costs and benefits. That does not give communities much comfort. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand that we have several areas in British Columbia - huge areas, millions of hectares - in which it has now been agreed upon between workers, industry, government, environmentalists, and all stakeholders as to what should happen. It's called consultation, and it works, not the courts.

Mr. Knutson: I think there's fundamental agreement that the legislation doesn't provide easy access to the courts.

The Chairman: Mr. Munro, as you know, this bill is a result of two years of consultation by the task force, in which all major resource industries were involved, including yours. So let's not say there's no consultation. This is a result of that very extensive work.

Mr. Munro: Charles, can I challenge you on that?

The Chairman: When you read the task force report you can see the list of the organizations that were involved. That's all I can say.

Mr. Munro: Charles, when you came to Vancouver early in 1996, there were 50 people invited to a meeting that for all intents and purposes was not an open meeting. It was a secret meeting, in our minds. The primary objective of 49 of those people was to shut down the forestry, and there was one from the industry itself. That's not proper consultation.

The Chairman: That is pure fiction, Mr. Munro, and you know it very well.

As to Mr. Pollock's invitation to show him where the recovery measures are indicated, I would like to refer him to page 19 of the bill, where the minister is given very wide powers under paragraph 38(5)(i), which reads:

Those are very wide-ranging powers given to any minister under any legislation and would include, of course, any economic considerations that may be raised at the appropriate time.

Mr. Pollock: Can you show me where there are guarantees -

The Chairman: There's no necessity -

Mr. Pollock: Charles, come on -

The Chairman: Mr. Pollock, you know very well from the procedure and the application of other pieces of statutes that these are very broad powers, and the minister of the time can invoke them and use them if they are also brought to his attention.

Mr. Pollock: Well, they're broad powers, but they are not binding on the government. Nowhere is it guaranteed that they're going to hear from stakeholders at all.

The Chairman: Well, the committee may make them binding. Who knows?

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): If I go back in my memory, just before Christmas we engaged in a number of hearings. We still have both sides diametrically opposed, one believing we've gone too far and the other side believing we haven't gone far enough, which could lead me to the obvious conclusion that we have it just about right. However, that's not likely to be the case that would satisfy either side.

So might I suggest that were the opportunity given for all sides - all of the stakeholders involved in this issue - to sit down.... There was a task force that did some of this, but if the government would mandate this group of people we're talking about today - both sides, everyone - and give them two years to sit down and come back to us with what they believe would be the appropriate legislation, would that be a possibility?

I'm not suggesting we're going to do that. It's not even the mandate of this committee to ask that question. But given that we have two sides, do you believe that on your own you would be able to come up with a piece of legislation that would satisfy the intent and the wishes of both sides? That's the first question.

The other question is to Mr. Wright.

You are very critical of the legislation in the U.S. How did the U.S. address redress for those people who were affected in terms of the closure of communities or businesses, where people had to relocate because of the impact of the legislation? How did the United States government, or the state governments, address that particular problem?

.1740

Mr. Wright: The problem is addressed really in two formats. There are provisions in the act relative to very specific kinds of taking, where you are prohibited and you are compensated for that prohibition. But those are very narrow, very limited.

The second compensation issue came up mainly as part of the spotted owl, and quite frankly I don't know if it shows up in other implementations of the Endangered Species Act in other parts of the U.S. But that was basically the federal government stepping in, separate and apart from any provision in the Endangered Species Act, and saying that there had been a federal action that had created economic and social problems in very select communities. They have stepped in with some programs on re-education, new work training and those kinds of programs, which I can't give you any details on, but I know the federal government has stepped in and done some of that.

Those are the only two areas I know of.

Mr. Munro: Paul, on your first question the short answer is yes. But who of us, politicians and others, know short answers? I would encourage, if there is any thought to taking a period of time.... That's really what we're saying. We can; we are.

There are so many areas in British Columbia now. The latest one is this corner, which is a pretty good-sized chunk of the corner of the province, where we have on resource management sat down with all groups and reached an agreement. Williams Lake has, Kamloops has, and there are some places in the north. In areas where groups are prepared to meet and there is some compromise, yes, it is very possible to come up with this stuff. We've done it, and the latest is this corner of British Columbia.

I should say that it took a while to get to that process. We started out in British Columbia with CORE, which had a table with one side of the argument on one side and the other side of the argument on the other side. That process lasted for a considerable period of time and didn't accomplish a damned thing because there was no compromise there. The chairman of CORE had to write four or five reports in the province. With all of them he guessed and he guessed very wrong. But out of that process came the LRMPs, the local resource management planning committees. Those committees are working, with all sides at the table prepared to compromise and come up with a plan.

Just so that everybody understands, the working forest in British Columbia is on less than 30% of the province, so it isn't the entire province we have to do this for. The industry is restricted to 30% of the province.

The answer is yes. Working people and other people can sit down and reach a compromise.

Mr. Staveley: I'd also like to offer some comments. B.C. Hydro has multimillion-dollar agreements with the provincial government and involving local communities and first nations in which they work cooperatively towards trying to enhance and improve the environment within specific watersheds. There are real efforts under way to look at that and see ways of expanding it.

We also have examples of local communities. The best and most recent one that comes to mind is the Alouette River. There are real concerns about the sustainability of fish in the Alouette River. B.C. Hydro, provincial and federal agencies, DFO, the ministry of the environment for the province, as well as the first nations and local community members were involved in working out an agreement to sustain the long-term viability of fish.

I throw those out as real-life examples - and there are others - that go to show that you can work together. You can work in partnership. You can come up with agreements and understandings, and everybody walks away feeling like there's a win-win.

We have also had experiences where we're in court. Going to court costs a lot of money. I could almost predict that whatever decision comes down, someone is going to be dissatisfied with it. The first nations feel disenfranchised. The communities feel they have no input. Eventually the decision will be subject to appeal, and the money that's spent in fighting those issues will basically be at the expense of a good, sound environmental investment.

Mr. Pollock: Concerning the kind of land-use planning processes Jack was describing, the Lower Mainland Regional Public Advisory Committee was one that actually reached consensus on on a protected area plan for the lower mainland of British Columbia.

.1745

I know it's very difficult, but I know that it can happen. Groups of stakeholders with very different perspectives can sit down and reach agreement. As others have indicated, it's a lot better than either going to court or seeing what happened in the Pacific Northwest, which was a court-driven outcome.

So I'd say sure. If you can make it a fair and balanced process with some reasonable guidelines and parameters, let's go at it.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, would you like to conclude?

Mr. Steckle: I appreciate your positive view on that position, but given that we seem to be so widely opposed in where we're going and in meeting that common middle ground, given some of the arguments we've heard this morning, I would see it as almost impossible for that to happen. If it could happen it would be a welcome turnaround, because it's very costly to conduct these kinds of hearings and to go on and on.

It's best that we have the kind of legislation that serves all of the parties, not just some of the parties, so I appreciate that. But I would also be interested in hearing from the other side whether they feel that common ground could be attained.

Mr. Pollock: There's nothing that lets the air out of a balloon like putting its feet to the fire. It's a mixed metaphor, but I think it's true. A lot of what goes on in confrontational and ideological debate is just air. There's nothing like being forced to sit down and stand and deliver in this kind of forum to get rid of a lot of that air.

Mr. Munro: In other words, you can sort out some of the rhetoric when you're all in the same room. We are never going to agree that 40% of the working forest be set aside. It doesn't make sense. But everybody is not of that view.

The Chairman: Let me reassure you that around this table there are more converging views than diverging views this afternoon. I don't think there's such a big gap to be bridged at all. We all want to stay out of the litigious side of it, and we want to find the techniques and measures that will bring resolution and anticipate the problem. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Adams followed by Madam Jennings.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): One of you mentioned that four provinces already have endangered species legislation. One is Ontario and one is New Brunswick. Both are provinces with strong forestry industries and strong hydro industries. We've had witnesses who have told us that parts of those provincial acts are actually stronger than what we are proposing here. Do you have any examples of the impact of the endangered species legislation in those provinces? Has it been a drag on development?

Mr. Munro: I can't speak for Ontario, but it was raised in Ottawa when I was there for FSAC that there are several complaints - I don't know if there are 20 or not, but there are a lot of them - that are working their way through the system and are headed for the courts. The act, I think, is only two years old. It hasn't really been around long enough and I can't -

Mr. Adams: Have there been any in court?

Mr. Munro: They're working their way through the system.

Mr. Adams: That's Ontario. What about the others that have been around?

Mr. Munro: I don't know about New Brunswick.

Mr. Adams: Hydro?

Mr. David Avren (Legal Counsel, B.C. Hydro): I don't think we can comment on the economic impact of the provincial statutes, but I can tell you that one difference between Bill C-65 and those statutes is that none of them creates private rights of civil action.

Mr. Adams: Ontario does, and by the way, more strongly than this does.

Mr. Avren: Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights does that. I might also point out that it includes a safeguard that I think we would recommend, which is that the court has the power to dismiss actions where it's in the public interest to do so. That includes various considerations - economic, environmental, and social. That's missing from this piece of legislation. We would recommend that for serious consideration by the committee.

Also Bill C-74, the new CEPA, includes a public interest dismissal provision for courts in private rights of action proposed under that bill.

.1750

Mr. Adams: My impression, Jack, is that the forestry industries in Ontario are on an upswing. Many of our companies have already run out of softwood quota and are demanding more, simply because their industry is doing this, in the time when we have this endangered species legislation.

Mr. Munro: Well, you characters in the east primarily manufactured chips, and two-by-fours were a by-product. Then when the pulp market went to hell you discovered there's some money in wood. Now you're manufacturing a lot of two-by-fours and putting a lot of two-by-fours in the traditional B.C. markets.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Wright, I can't give you all of this, but it's largely from the United States General Accounting Office, which I guess is a bit like our Auditor General. It's a report examining the impact of endangered species legislation.

Almost 90% of all consultations under the U.S. Endangered Species Act were disposed of informally. Over 90% of the consultations concerning activities sufficiently curious to be conducted formally resulted in findings of ``no jeopardy''. Of those few that were conducted formally and found to have potential jeopardy, nearly 90% arrived at reasonable and prudent alternatives that allowed the projects to proceed.

So over a five-year period only 18 projects were terminated. That's less than 1% of the formal consultations and less than 0.02% of consultations overall. In other words, 99% of projects referred to this legislation because of potential impacts were able to proceed after advance review.

With respect to hydro in particular, the report found that of the 3,200 consultations reviewed, none led to termination of a water project, and only 68 consultations had any effect on the project at all. The experience in the U.S. has shown that the endangered species legislation has not significantly impeded development activity. Instead, the overwhelming majority of projects have proceeded. In fact the high number of development projects proceeding under the act has caused concern that projects are proceeding despite potential jeopardy.

What do you think of that?

Mr. Wright: As I touched on in my presentation, if you take the Endangered Species Act listing in total - all 967 of them, most of which do not have recovery plans and most of which have never gone through a consultative process - you can come up with those kinds of statistics. But when you take the five major storage projects within the U.S., the eight run-of-the-river projects that belong to the federal government, and the five run-of-the-river projects that belong to non-federal entities, we have reallocated over 12 million acre-feet of water from power production regulations to fish flow production. That's resulted in something in excess of 1,300 megawatts taken out of the generation system.

So no, we have not torn down any plants, but yes, we have reregulated a substantial amount of the Columbia River storage under the Endangered Species Act in an attempt to try to recover the animals. That results in, as I said, about a $435 million overall annual impact.

So a very small number of Endangered Species Act listings have resulted in very large impacts. If you take it on average, the Endangered Species Act has not resulted in large economic impacts. Mainly that is because the bulk of those 967 listings are the sole responsibility of the federal government, and the federal government will not devote the resources to it.

Mr. Adams: We appreciate your presenting the view of the U.S. legislation, but it seems to me that most of the listed species in the United States are endangered, not threatened, whereas in Canada the species are largely vulnerable, not endangered. The emphasis in our legislation therefore is on prevention. We're at an earlier stage of the process.

Wouldn't you agree therefore that it makes the comparison not a particularly good one, particularly in terms of the costs? If we can deal with it at the prevention level with these vulnerable instead of endangered species, that is the time to expend fewer resources with maximum impact.

.1755

Mr. Wright: I was not trying to make direct comparisons between our listing and our recovery programs in the United States and yours. I was trying to emphasize the lessons we learned in the attempts to implement that. Some of those lessons may be valuable to you in your implementation of an endangered species act.

Any time you can get ahead of a listing in the form of habitat recovery plans or any other comprehensive plans, and any time, once you have a listing, that you can get in as early as you can and establish recovery standards and measure all of your activities against those recovery standards, you will be far better off.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, I would submit that this is what we're trying to do in trying to get this through now rather than in a few years.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Adams, can I go back to your point about the 1%? It was a hell of a 1%. The 1% pretty much is accounted for by the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest.

I want to quote from a study by Professor Robert G. Lee of the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington, and I'll make a copy of this available to the committee if you want. He says that between 1988 and 1992:

That was directly as a result of the spotted owl injunctions and the resulting Clinton plan. That is a massive impact from one - just one - spotted owl injunction.

Mr. Adams: We would be glad to have the paper, but does the professor isolate this particular endangered species legislation from the changes in the forest industry over several decades?

Mr. Pollock: Yes.

Mr. Adams: Does that sort of interpretation receive wide support academically, let's say, not politically?

Mr. Pollock: I don't think it has been challenged academically. I don't think it has been undermined academically. I'd be happy to hear from any of the folks chuckling at the back of the hall who can provide any information to controvert it.

Mr. Adams: We'd be very pleased to see it, I'm sure, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Jennings followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Gentlemen, we're certainly on a controversial issue today. We've heard this morning from those on the other end of the spectrum, I guess you could say.

I don't like to put you on the spot, Mr. Staveley, but I guess that's what I'm going to do. I am the member for Mission - Coquitlam. I am very familiar with the Alouette River and what happened. In my riding we had a river in which the water flow was so low that we had virtually no water in our river. The salmon were not even there to spawn. If it had not been for the Alouette River Management Society, the group in our community that got to me, and I got to the major - or the major actually got to me as well.... There are groups that had to work very hard to get B.C. Hydro to do something to release enough water. One week there was nothing and the next week, on October 5, I was standing in that river when the salmon came through and started to spawn.

I'm trying to point out here that we all have to work together. Sometimes we need to prod each other and sometimes we have to give and take. In this case B.C. Hydro was not doing its job until the group got together. It was a combination of the bands and everything. I am happy that in the end we all got together and got a solution that was workable.

When you talk about the reality of what's going on here, I'm concerned. I'm hearing a lot of things. I'm hearing bits of something that I have said for years - that people have to sit down and talk together. I said that this morning. All of the stakeholders have to do the talking, and we the politicians must take our direction from you the stakeholders if anything is going to work.

I heard you mention that, Jack, and I heard Mr. Pollock mention things like that too.

This morning I heard that Bill C-65 is more gloss than substance. Indeed, another statement came out that the habitat critical to the survival and protection of the species is protected by this act. I've heard it said that that's not true. I've heard complaints from this side that in fact what's happened is not a reality, is not true.

.1800

Mr. Pollock, I agree with what you say. Basically you ask is it balanced or is it fair here for the industrial workers and those people involved in the professions, in the industry you are working within. As well, it doesn't address the need for a healthy and sound way of life for all Canadians.

We're talking here of all Canadians, remember, for your workers as well as for those of us who aren't in that industry but still want to enjoy the forest and everything like that.

I heard from you, Jack, that the workers don't find comfort in the courts. I would agree with you 100% that they don't find comfort in the courts. I've been there myself, and I can certainly attest to that.

.1855

You're right, Jack, the consultation process does work. The problem is, we get down this line and suddenly, after two years of consultation, as our chair has said, I heard in Ottawa from the ranchers and the farmers that, gee, you know, we're not those big mean guys. When something happens on our land we do try to protect it. When we unknowingly do something, we try to correct it.

What I'm hearing from everyone is, look, nobody in here is trying to destroy the habitat. Nobody in here is not aware that now.... In the past there were problems. I perhaps have more knowledge of the forest industry than a lot of the members here, because I lived for 18 years right beside it. The forestry people told me that in the past they did a lot of damage but are trying to rectify that now.

I think that's what you're at this table for, too. I think we're all trying to do that.

The consultation process will work if - and it's a big ``if'' - the political part will take your recommendations and the environment's recommendations and not water it down to what is politically expedient for them but what will work for all of us in Canada.

I think that's what you're trying to say: let us work together as a group.

Mr. Staveley: I think one of the difficulties is that in consultation there has to be fact based on scientific review to support that consultative process. In my experience many of the situations have arisen because people take positions and truly believe that they have persuasive arguments when in fact there isn't really the scientific evidence to support those contentions. It costs a great deal of money, particularly with respect to fish. They're not as visible, with salmon and other species migrating. There are a lot of factors that contribute to their population and how their habitat is affected. What is the appropriate flow? That evidence can be obtained. It's not easy. It just takes time.

A lot of facilities were constructed at a time when these concerns were not there. Trying to identify those in some sequence of priority and timeliness can be quite difficult. This is one of the reasons why B.C. Hydro is going through a systematic review of each of the facilities, but it's going to take a number of years to complete that.

Once you have that information you're in a much better position to make changes as appropriate. If we don't base it on scientific information, quite frankly, we can have a reverse effect. We can in fact think we're increasing flow of water when in fact we're actually destroying the fish because the water flow is too great at the wrong time of the year. We actually have had situations where we can demonstrate that specific requests for an increase in flow of water subsequently was discovered to be scientifically unjustified.

So we do need the information, the facts, not just specific to fish but to all wildlife. That's one of the big handicaps in trying to come to some consensus much more quickly than we otherwise would.

Mrs. Jennings: Absolutely. I think science, based on facts, is what we attacked in the Mission - Coquitlam area with.... We had a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill there, people who had these years of experience.

.1810

Don't forget that this morning we heard from the environmentalists, who also presented us with scientifically based facts.

Mr. Staveley: But the solution was hinged on doing a review of the water flow and of the population and the reproduction habits of that fish in that particular river. Once that information is brought in and reviewed by the working group...there was some tough discussion because there were a lot of dollars on the line. There was a real issue for the community, but in the end, based on that information, there was agreement.

I think that's the way we have to go. We can throw a lot of money at this, but I really don't think we're going to find the solutions in court or in confrontation. That's been my experience. That's my view.

Mrs. Jennings: I agree with you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Chair, I've recently heard comments about the job loss in the Pacific northwest being unequivocally related to the endangered species legislation there and comments about that statement not being challenged by academics. I have a report here that was prepared as a consensus document by over 30 economists. They are not representatives of environmental organizations. They are economists from different academic institutions in the Pacific Northwest area.

The report was prepared in December 1995, and if the committee will indulge me, I'll read this quote from the document:

The report goes on to state that the job losses in the natural resource industries, particularly in the extractive industries, are based on the fact that these industries are mature industries with a high level of technological development. Automation may have something to do with those job losses as well. The past levels of logging could not be sustained because these industries don't have the same supply of timber and old growth forest. I want to put that on the record.

Secondly, Mr. Pollock, I was very interested in your organization, which is committed to social justice. I have a great affinity with you on this particular principle. It's something I work very hard for in my capacity as a member of Parliament in Ottawa. I'm very concerned about issues related to social justice. I want to ask you if you agree with this particular quote:

Mr. Pollock: I'm not absolutely sure what it means, but I'll certainly consider it. In terms of the questions of job loss, technological change, and land use decisions in the Pacific Northwest, I can tell you that the perspective you're describing - I'm not familiar with the paper you just handed me, but I'll have a look at it, and thank you very much - usually depends on the timeframe of the analysis.

That perspective is probably true if you're talking about the period from the late 1970s until the early 1990s, when there were forces of technological change affecting employment, but I'll just cite you a reference. Again, it's from the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report, page 21, section vii. It describes the drop in the amount of timber under contract in the federal lands affected by the spotted owl injunctions and concludes this way:

.1815

In other words, the FEMAT study - which was the very thorough analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the spotted owl management program - said, ``Don't kid yourselves, folks, this is the result of the spotted owl injunction.'' The study said that these job losses and these reductions in timber harvesting are a result of the spotted owl injunction.

Mr. Munro: Charles, we talked a bit about this in Ottawa, but I want to say once again that people continuously use this nonsense, and this is the problem with people who aren't prepared to make some concessions or to negotiate a settlement.

From the point of view of labour costs, the forest industry in British Columbia, particularly the solid wood products side of the industry, has been the world's most efficient producer of solid wood for twelve or fifteen years, since the industry modernized. At that time I was president of the organization that Kim now represents. We took the position that instead of arguing about productivity at the bargaining table, we would tell the industry to build some new plants so we could stay in the world market or else we'd all be out of work. And that's what the union did. The United States was unable to do that for various reasons.

Yes, there was some movement of people from a big old barn of a sawmill with 600 people in it to a new mill with maybe 200 people in it, but if we hadn't done that we wouldn't be in the world market.

I keep hearing about this technological change...as for what happened to the people in the United States, I can produce as many documents as people who disagree with me can produce to talk about the job losses, or the effects, or whatever their concern is. That doesn't solve anything.

That's why I really support a process of consultation, but not one that's under the gun of being a few weeks away from the last session of Parliament before there's an election. I really support taking time to go down and look. And I don't care how many economic papers you read: when you stand in front of a community and the service stations and the stores and everything are boarded up with plywood and the current rate of unemployment is 30% to 40% among people who used to work in the forest industry, it doesn't matter a hell of a lot what economists say. That's the reality of life.

Some high-tech industries have moved into that area that pay between $8 an hour and $10 an hour. That's what is replacing jobs that used to pay $28 an hour. That's not what we want in Canada. We shouldn't have to go through this in Canada.

And why the forest industry? I guess all aspects of the forest industry get nervous when we understand what may be coming down. As for the balance of payment to Canada, we would have been in a deficit position for the last ten or twelve years without the forest industry. We would all be in a hell of a lot worse shape. We have to understand these things. The time to get things correct is before we bring in what we're afraid might be legislation that will have a disastrous effect in some places.

Talking about the United States, my good friend from the United States is sitting next to me. We're not knocking them. They're our good neighbours and all that sort of nonsense.

When you're here we say that.

Mr. Wright: Thank you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Munro: We're in a hell of a lot better position without legislation than they are with legislation.

In our minds, they want a fairer share of the salmon than they deserve. It's Canadian salmon. I don't want to get into an argument with him, but it's a fact. They're importing wolves from Canada because wolves have become extinct...with legislation. They're importing bears from Canada because bears have become extinct. You can go on and on.

We're saying that we are not in danger of losing any species because of human activity, in British Columbia at least. That's the only place I can talk about.

The Chairman: Right. That's true.

Mr. Munro: We're not in any danger so why is there a rush? There are no endangered species. So we want to work in consultation in order to do something right.

.1820

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, could I just have one more response here? Thank you.

If Mr. Munro isn't interested in receiving information from economists - and I fully understand that - but is interested in consultation, I would like to quote something from paragraph 39(b) of Bill C-65, which is what is before us:

(b) other persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by, or interested in, the plan.

So it's very clearly laying out consultation around recovery plans within the legislation.

Mr. Pollock: But, one, it leaves that to the discretion of the minister. And what is ``in consultation with''? Does that mean they are directly involved in the process of preparing the recovery plan, or does it mean the minister goes out, talks to them one afternoon, and it's a fait accompli?

I don't think that's very strong. If I were living in the Fraser timber supply area or the Soo timber supply area - we're almost sitting in that right now - and I was facing, for instance, an action around the spotted owl under this act, I would find that pretty cool comfort in terms of my protection under this bill, the rights that I enjoy under this bill.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think we'd have to look at historical precedents within Environment Canada and look at the number of recovery plans that are currently in place and have been working where the community itself has been actively involved. I would suggest that when it says ``in consultation with'', we'll be using some of those precedents.

Thank you.

Mr. Pollock: Strengthen the language then.

The Chairman: We now have reached a point where we must move to the next group of witnesses.

Mr. Munro: How come your committee has deducted long-winded questions off our time?

The Chairman: We don't deduct it at all. We are applying the same rules to the same group of people if we can.

Let me make a few brief observations from the chair, since there was not enough time for me to ask questions.

First of all, of course, on behalf of the members of the committee, I thank the Allied Workers, the Forest Alliance, and B.C. Hydro for their input. This has been of tremendous value to us. We'll certainly not only remember this, but we will also take your points into account when we come to the final discussions.

The point I would like to make is that this legislation applies on federal lands only. It will therefore not apply in the provinces. That is something for which the bill has been criticized. Nevertheless, that is the reality of federal-provincial relations.

In B.C. in particular, the Forest Practices Code will do a great deal of good if it is implemented. I fully agree with those who have said that the Forest Practices Code can be extremely helpful, and not only in British Columbia. It has become a model elsewhere. It is actually a code that has won respect for Canada in the rest of the world as an outstanding piece of legislation. All it needs is a steady and continuous respect and implementation.

Second, the fishery industry is a model of unsustainability that is in the minds of the members of this committee. We do not want to see the repetition of the experience in that field in the forest resource.

Third, some of you have said the modernization of the forest industry has led to substantial job reductions. I'm glad it was said by you, because that is where most of the reductions have taken place.

Fourth, we want to avoid the negatives of the Pacific Northwest experience. In that sense,Mr. Wright, again we are extremely grateful for the advice that you have brought to this table today.

.1825

Fifth, on the litigation aspect in this proposed legislation, the potential is virtually nil. If you read the clauses carefully, the powers for litigation are very circumscribed. If you want to take the simple legislation as a model, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was passed in 1988 and in which there is a similar provision for citizens' action, only two citizens over eight years have taken an action, and those cases were in respect of chemicals, a field that is fraught with potential for citizens' actions to a much larger degree than this particular public interest sector.

Next, this legislation will not be necessary at all the day that species will not be endangered. There is nothing to fear; if we do the right thing, the legislation will virtually be unnecessary and will collect dust. Isn't that a nice prospect?

Next, on the task force proposal, the task force met twice. It's true that their document is not unanimous; it's true that there were differences of opinion. Nevertheless, before this bill was adopted, there were considerable and extensive consultations that included a very large number of stakeholders, to use Mrs. Jennings's terminology.

Finally, as a comment of my own - one that I know you will not find easy to accept - my experience is that it's quite clear that the protection of wildlife is an important link in the protection of long-term logging and forest interests. Elsewhere in the world, wherever you look - be it in Europe, Africa, South America, or in certain parts of eastern Canada - where wildlife is endangered, where wildlife has rapidly disappeared, forests have also followed. They have disappeared in commercial value and in presence. Where wildlife has been protected and where wildlife is present, the resource is also there, and logging as an economic activity has been preserved, not for just one or two but for ten generations.

So there is an invisible but very important link between wildlife and logging. That link is of enormous importance if we want to preserve the resource and the wages that come with it for the long term. This piece of legislation therefore really has a potential positive impact, even if it is an invisible one, because of the link between the two. When we talk about wildlife, we talk also of the long-term value of the resource.

With that, I thank you for your participation again, and we ask for the next group to come to the table.

.1827

.1835

The Chairman: Order. We tackle the next stage of our journey.

We're very glad and honoured to have here the Council of Forest Industries, SHARE B.C., and Interfor. I wonder whether you would like to start in that order, beginning with Mr. Beaumont. You have 15 minutes. I will give you a little signal at 10 so that we can also have a round of questions, and then move to the next group in one hour.

Would you like to start, Mr. Beaumont.

Mr. Rod Beaumont (Chair, Forestry Committee, Council of Forest Industries): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent today the Council of Forest Industries. We represent approximately120 forest companies in British Columbia. On behalf of the council I'll make a brief presentation. We have distributed our brief already, so I will simply speak to some major points we'd like to make.

The Council of Forest Industries recognizes and supports the need to protect threatened and endangered species. The preferred approach the council and our member companies take to the long-term success of protecting threatened and endangered species is preservation of biodiversity and management of biodiversity. Prevention of the threat or the loss of a species is best achieved through the management of habitat. As forest companies are primarily on public land in British Columbia, we are in the business of managing habitat.

In British Columbia considerable effort is directed to maintaining biodiversity. As we have heard, some very strong initiatives around the protected area strategy and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act are being implemented today in British Columbia. All forest companies manage under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. These measures, in combination with existing recovery plans, should ensure that no further listings result from forest operations.

We see three areas in the draft endangered species act that we believe may jeopardize the preservation of biodiversity in British Columbia. I'd like to focus on those three general areas.

I might add that we have not analysed the act to the point of drafting or recommending new wording. We have reviewed the act in the context of our objective of managing forests and biodiversity and have raised three issues of concern to put back to the committee. So I hope you won't ask me for any amendments or wording. We have none. We're raising concerns, and we trust the committee to deliver those to the drafters and specialists who can deal with that.

The first area - and I'm sure you have heard some of this, and in the brief time I've been here, I've been hearing this - is the lack of requirement for the federal government to undertake socio-economic or cost-benefit analysis before initiating recovery plans. As well, there appears to be no mention of any consideration of compensation for workers, licence-holders, or landowners who may be affected by such plans. While there appears to be provision for economic analysis of the cost of recovery plans, it does not appear to extend to a cost-benefit in a socio-economic impact sense.

The second area we find a concern with is that the draft act appears to be primarily directed at enforcement rather than a cooperative management approach. This extends to the apparent provision for citizens to initiate investigations if the minister responsible has made a decision not considered reasonable.

I did listen to the discussion previously. Much of it appears to hinge on what is defined as ``reasonable''; what is reasonable behaviour. This appears to undermine the authority of the minister responsible, and by inference, perhaps, his staff of specialists and experts. It appears to allow a citizen or individual directly to supplant the elected and democratic authority of that minister. If the obstacles to that in the bill are as high or as serious as the discussion has indicated, then we must question the necessity of that particular element in the bill.

.1840

The third concern relates to the management potential of intergovernmental jurisdictional concerns and disputes. Within British Columbia, of course, on primarily publicly managed lands, lands managed by the provincial government, we have always been concerned about potential jurisdictional problems between provincial and federal governments. There has been some discussion around the federal Fisheries Act, which is obviously an example. This bill appears potentially to impose a federal authority over some of the provincial jurisdictions on land and resource management. If we recognize that this bill is predicated primarily on federal lands, species do not -

The Chairman: I was just wondering if you might be able to pinpoint what appears to be an infringement of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction, as you were just saying a moment ago, so we can see it in the bill.

Mr. Beaumont: I have no example I've found in the bill. I reflect this as a concern about the potential for this to happen, which may be an exacerbation of past concerns we have had around the federal Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: It would be helpful if you were to focus on what is in the bill and not on construction of hypothetical situations, because life is complicated enough and we are dealing with the bill.

Mr. Beaumont: In this bill we would recommend that provincial governments be given a more equal involvement in the development of recovery plans and in the determination of critical habitats in this area.

The Chairman: I would also bring to your attention the fact that the legislation refers only to federal jurisdiction and not to provincial.

Mr. Beaumont: Yes, I understand that.

The process of the determining critical habitat is of extreme importance to us as forestry industry land managers and should include provincial authorities and other stakeholders to the greatest extent possible. Within the bill we do not see strong wording to provide for an equal sharing of authority in those discussions about recovery plans.

The Chairman: There is a very good reason for that: the bill does not apply to provincial jurisdictions.

Mr. Beaumont: Yes.

That summarizes my comments on the bill. Thank you.

The Chairman: Next, Mr. Morton, please.

Mr. Michael Morton (Executive Director, SHARE B.C.): Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity for us to make another brief presentation to the committee this afternoon. I should also mention at the outset that I will not make any reference to the Pacific northwest. However, I will, maybe unfortunately, use some better illustrations from right here in British Columbia.

SHARE B.C. is a coalition of community groups from throughout British Columbia. It has a collective membership in excess of 20,000 British Columbians, many of whom live in rural resource-dependent communities across the province. SHARE B.C. was incorporated as a non-profit society in 1990. The mandate of the organization is to promote community stability by supporting the principles of sustainable development and to provide a voice for the many thousands of British Columbians at discussions about land- and resource-use issues that lead to decisions that may and often do affect their livelihoods in the communities where our members live.

Sine 1990 our organization has participated in many land-use forums provincially, nationally, and internationally. Some of those include provincial forums such as the Commission on Resources and Environment, established by the previous Government of British Columbia five years ago, the Fraser Basin management board process - the federal program - the provincial protected areas strategy, and many other regional processes throughout the province. At the federal level SHARE B.C. is recognized as a socio-economic non-governmental organization.

In 1992 we were accredited to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil as an NGO. We participated in the preparatory sessions at the United Nations in New York. We also participated in the development of the national forest strategy in Ottawa during that time. Currently, SHARE B.C. also provides a voice for rural communities at the ongoing national consultations of the intergovernmental panel on forests, the next session taking place next week in Ottawa. We also participate in other forums, including the International Institute for Sustainable Development hearings that were held in Winnipeg last fall.

.1845

On a personal note, I live in a community of approximately 2,000 people on the west coast of Vancouver Island. My community, Ucluelet, also happens to be on the doorstep of Clayoquot Sound, that region of the west coast that has become so famous around the world. The reason I mention this is that the residents of the west coast of Vancouver Island have learned very well during the past ten years what can happen to a community when land and resource decisions that are made do not give any consideration to the economic and social impacts on the people who have chosen to live there.

It would not be appropriate today to give a detailed history of Clayoquot Sound, but regrettably, I must say my community, if it is not dying, is extremely ill. To date no government, provincially or federally, has shown any real interest in finding a cure. Forestry, which is one integral part of the economy, has effectively disappeared, because of a myriad of new processes that have been created by the provincial government during the past ten years.

As a matter of information, Ucluelet was also a thriving fishing community, the third-largest fish-processing centre on the west coast, following Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Today that segment of the economy is also disappearing, all too quickly, because of government leaders who often live on the other side of the country and governments that do not truly understand the complexities of the conservation and development equation.

Since 1989 I and many others have participated in over 400 meetings, attempting to ensure our resource industries would provide long-term sustainable employment for years to come for both those who are currently employed in those industries and our young people who may have chosen to remain there. Unfortunately that has not occurred. Ucluelet now sits in the middle of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Its backyard is the Long Beach model forest. Now both the provincial and the federal governments are suggesting we also receive biosphere reserve status. With so many designations there is little hope and there are few opportunities for those young people any more.

Yes, it is little wonder that Ucluelet is very ill economically and socially. Serious drug- and alcohol-related problems are emerging that did not occur ten years ago, when our community was much more stable. Far too often one sees moving trucks coming into town empty and then heading down the highway loaded, and the families following behind with only memories of too many broken promises about jobs and stability given them by government leaders. It is that way because for too long people have been making land and resource decisions on our behalf, decisions that have given little or no consideration to the economic and social consequences that follow.

Today we are here to discuss Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. At this time I would like to thank the committee again for the opportunity to address you today. I would like to state that I am not a biologist, nor am I a forester. It is on that basis that I'll keep my comments brief and not deal with the technical aspects of the bill. But please consider them for what they are: from a resident from a community that will no doubt bear the full effects of Bill C-65.

Like most other British Columbians and Canadians, I am deeply concerned about protecting those environmental values that we all cherish, including the protection of any species that may be considered endangered because of human activities. SHARE B.C. does support any reasonable attempt to protect endangered species. It is probably overdue for a country such as ours, with its very diverse climate and biodiversity, to have such an act in place.

SHARE B.C. is very concerned about the little cost consideration Bill C-65 gives to the social impacts the bill may have on communities such as mine. I want to emphasize that given the significance of the legislation and the potential impacts it may have on the lives of many people, I am very disappointed in the matter in which Bill C-65 appears to be being fast-tracked to meet a political agenda. If the social and economic impacts are not given broader and more significant consideration, the results could be potentially devastating for many people across the country.

I would add that I am dismayed that the people of rural communities across the country have not been given the opportunity to understand the proposed Canada Endangered Species Protection Act better, and to understand what the implications may mean for them. Whether it's the logger in Terrace, the miner in Timmins, or the trapper in Temiscaming, they should be given the opportunity to understand and participate in these deliberations.

It is quite simply not good enough to have public hearings in two of the largest urban regions of the country. The committee should be travelling to Prince George, British Columbia; to Kenora, Ontario; to Rouyn, Quebec; to Bathurst, New Brunswick; and to every other community that could be impacted on by this bill. Time and financial straits should not be factors when people's lives and livelihoods hang in the balance.

SHARE B.C. does applaud the government for its efforts to protect endangered species with Bill C-65. However, I would urge you again to give full consideration to the economic and social implications it will have on communities like mine on the west coast and all other communities like mine throughout the country before proceeding further.

.1850

We believe the Endangered Species Protection Act will only succeed if it has the broad support and endorsement of all Canadians who are deeply concerned with conservation and development issues, whether they live in Toronto, Kirkland Lake, or Ucluelet.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Morton. I can assure you that provincial committees will be travelling to all these communities you've listed in your brief the day that provincial legislation is proposed. At the present time, the legislation that is before us today is federal legislation. Its impact and application will be limited only to species that are recognized in international agreements - and so far we haven't seen any negative effects from that - or to species that are aquatic.

Therefore, the necessity of consulting rural communities is one that must be outlined, but I think the time for those consultations will come if and when provincial legislatures draft their legislation to mirror the federal one. You might want to be reassured in that respect.

Mr. Morton: I appreciate that, Mr. Caccia. I did mention the development of the national forest strategy in 1992. If we can draw a parallel there, that committee really bent over backwards to get out to the communities across the country to ensure that they got that broad cross-section of input. Recognizing, as I did mention, the financial constraints, obviously, we consider the act to be very significant to communities like mine.

I'll look forward to addressing any other questions later on.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Rosenberg.

Mr. Bill Rosenberg (Engineer, Timber Development, International Forest Products Limited): I'd like to thank the committee for allowing International Forest Products to make a presentation this afternoon on Bill C-65.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about our company to give you some background on where we're coming from. We're a logging and sawmilling company that operates exclusively here in B.C. We're a B.C.-based company. We can trace our heritage back to Whonnock, B.C. We operate seven sawmills here in the Lower Mainland area and around fifty logging camps up and down the coast. We have one operation in the interior of the province. We employ approximately 4,000 people province-wide.

I believe our company has a good commitment to stewardship of the land. An example of this is a joint environmental initiative we have undertaken with the forest workers of the IWA, where together we ensure that we're meeting the highest environmental standards.

Our company has taken a very proactive approach in land use planning. We've been involved in a number of land use initiatives here in the province, such as the Vancouver Island CORE process. We're involved in a Lower Mainland protected area strategy.

It's been pointed out that most forest companies in Interfor operate on public lands here in the province. The Province of B.C. maintains the management responsibilities and we pay stumpage, or a fee, for the logs we take off. We have a number of licensing arrangements with the province.

Our company has had some experience with endangered species. I was the forest industry representative on the spotted owl recovery team that was convened here about five years ago. That's provided us with some insights on how we can go about bringing this legislation into being.

.1855

Interfor supports the conservation of endangered species and we're supportive of the federal government's initiative for legislation. I mentioned our involvement with spotted owls. That's only one species. The habitat within B.C. is highly diverse and hundreds of species could be affected by this legislation.

I'll quickly go through an overview of Bill C-65 as we see it. I will highlight some provincial jurisdiction. I would like to talk a little about the integration of existing provincial programs and touch on the science and social aspects of the bill.

Our company agrees with the overall direction of Bill C-65. I think it's stated within clause5 that it's to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or endangered. I don't think you would find anyone in this room who would argue with that. We believe, though, it requires a bit of tempering to deal with the practicalities of implementing this type of legislation where there has been a lot of human activity. So we would recommend the addition of ``where feasible'' following that statement.

About the scope of the proposed legislation, the preamble to the bill states that responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the various levels of government in this country and it is important to work together in this regard. Although it has been stated that the bill is strictly about federal lands, I believe there is some question about that - at least in my mind there is - and we would like to see a very clear delineation between the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction in this regard, highlighting the administrative framework in the application of the proposed act.

Under the current non-legislated system there are COSEWIC and RENEW. These have largely been voluntary organizations. They have been fairly effective. COSEWIC has been listing species and it has been incumbent upon the provincial governments to act on that.

We believe the focus of Bill C-65 should be that the federal government should set out the administrative framework for the recovery of endangered and extirpated species and coordinate activities throughout Canada. The bill undertakes this, and we applaud that, in the legislated Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and in legislating the COSEWIC committee.

The application of the proposed act, as we've interpreted it, applies to aquatic species and habitats, migratory birds, and federal lands. I think there's some concern over clause 7, where the federal government could enter into agreements with provincial governments over how that would be interpreted. We would like to see a very clear delineation between the federal responsibility and the provincial responsibility, and that would be our recommendation there.

Another area of potential misinterpretation is clause 33. As it's currently written and as we have interpreted it, this could be an additional avenue for federal involvement in provincial lands. As an operator in the province here, we face a number of uncertainties, and we would not want to see a duplication of efforts between the two levels of government. We have our licensing arrangements with the provincial government and we would prefer that any jurisdiction over provincial lands be maintained with the province. If cross-boundary species are at risk, we would recommend that the act be changed so the province would request help from the federal government and in that respect the federal government could act as a mediator in that situation.

We've heard several of the speakers talk about some of the provincial initiatives under way. In B.C. we have the Forest Practices Code, with a number of regulations and guidelines. Some of those guidelines pertain to the management of the riparian areas along creeks and rivers. We have a biodiversity guidebook.

.1900

The code takes a preventive maintenance approach. Rather than manage on a species-by-species basis we're looking at entire ecosystems. We're trying to ensure, through the code, that we have a cross-section of those habitats available so that we will always have enough habitat for all the species.

We've heard about the protected area strategy the provincial government brought into being a few years ago. We have a goal in the province of having 12% of the land base protected by 2000. Currently we're at about 10% protected. When we started out we were around 6%.

Following up the protected area strategy are a number of regional land use zoning activities. In areas that haven't received protection but the stakeholders identify value there - an endangered species or other special features - they can receive special management zoning.

So Interfor would recommend that the federal legislation have an additional clause to recognize some of these provincial initiatives.

In terms of the science of the bill we have no argument that this has to be the defining feature of the act. It has to be definable and unbiased and very quantifiable. To further that, we would recommend that the definitions for ``extinct'', ``extirpated'', ``endangered'', ``threatened'' and ``vulnerable'' be written right into the act so that there are no questions whatsoever.

Under habitat, there is as we see it some potential for misinterpretation the way the act is written right now. Certainly from the discussions that have taken place here today, on whether it be called critical habitat or core habitat, one suggestion was just to call it habitat. That might do away with a lot of the controversy.

From our experience with the spotted owl we would point out that it's very difficult to identify the core or critical habitat of a species prior to the recovery plan. It's during the recovery plan that this on-the-ground assessment can take place.

Under protection of species, we would recommend the removal of the word ``taking'' from the definition as stated right now. In the U.S. this has led to a lot of discussion around what exactly ``taking'' meant. In some cases it's been interpreted to mean habitat. I think the intent of that clause was to not harm the species.

In terms of the social aspects of the act, I believe the recovery plans require the input of all stakeholders. Recovery plans can't ignore the human interface that's already taking place on lands that we're going to try to manage for endangered species. They have to include some economic factors. I understand the act already has that built into it, but I think it has to take place at the recovery plan stage.

We would advocate public involvement over the civil litigation route. I understand from the discussions today that it's a very narrow window within which this civil litigation could take place. We would still have a concern that an area could be planned for under recovery plan, be put in place by either the federal or provincial government, and a company like ourselves could put together a business plan for that area and find later on that it would be disrupted. I can't stress enough the need for certainty in putting this act into place.

To conclude, Interfor supports the conservation of endangered species. Our company is supportive of the federal government's initiative to enact endangered species legislation.

There are some main points we've covered off. We would prefer to see the federal government take on an overseeing or coordinating role. We would like a very clear delineation between the federal government's jurisdiction and the provincial government's jurisdiction. We would prefer to see the provincial government maintain control over the lands where our licensing arrangements are in place right now.

.1905

We would like recognition of the existing provincial legislation and initiatives. We would prefer to see a focus on public participation. Recovery plans need to include the economic factors.

Our experience with land use planning and decision-making is that they work best when all the stakeholders are fully committed and involved. In our minds the federal legislation will be a success if complete stakeholder involvement is achieved.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg.

Mr. Rodney.

Mr. Jim Rodney (Environmental Forester, International Forest Products Limited (Interfor)): I'm just a technical supporter.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: I have no questions.

The Chairman: Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Morton, when he was addressing SHARE B.C.'s concerns about going to the areas that are immediately impacted on by Bill C-65...specifically you mentioned Prince George and others. I see that as being of paramount concern too, in that large urban areas here may not feel the same effects from Bill C-65 once it's in place.

Interfor addressed the question of the public involvement here. Mr. Rosenberg, you made the statement that stakeholder input is required throughout the planning process, and full public review is required. When you say ``full public review'', would you agree perhaps with Mr. Morton that we should be going to the places that are mostly impacted on by Bill C-65, or you do see this as a sufficient area for B.C., for instance, to deal with -

Mr. Rosenberg: That comment was made in regard to the actual recovery planning process. We believe the stakeholders in affected areas should be part of the recovery planning team. Once the team put together a plan there could be a review of the plan in the community.

Mrs. Jennings: I see.

Mr. Morton: Whereas I was suggesting that before enacting the legislation the residents of Peterborough or the residents of Prince George should have the same opportunity as the people in Vancouver or Toronto may have. Again, it has been pointed out on a number of occasions this afternoon and today that we all support the concept of having an act, but it will only be successful if you have buy-in from the people who are going to be most affected, and generally those are the residents of those communities in the outback, so to speak.

Mrs. Jennings: I will ask one more question. Maybe I should have asked this of Mr. Munro or some of the others who were here just before.

It appears to me we're looking at a part of the problem and not the whole problem. I think we often do that in society. In this case the forest industry is one industry such that we seem to be doing just one thing with our logs. Some of our best logs are going out of the province and out of our country. What about secondary industry? In your communities, for instance, which are now down to such a few, is there any discussion at all among those in the forest industry at the table, asking, well, why aren't we involved in secondary industry; why aren't we using our wood and making our products and selling them at home? Is anything at all moving in this direction, to realize the potential we have for future jobs?

Mr. Morton: Both Rod and I have a comment on that, but maybe I'll go first, because this is extremely emotional for me.

This is a huge concern. We would love to have a lot more people employed in the forest sector, but again, first off we have to sort out the land use issues. As I mentioned, I live in Clayoquot Sound. We have a model forest there. We have Pacific Rim National Park there. Now they want to make it a Clayoquot biosphere reserve. We don't even have the primary industry any more.

First we have to sort out the land use issues. We have all these other issues that have to be dealt with, and they have to be dealt with, you're right.

Mr. Beaumont: The comment I would make to that is that logs do not go offshore from public lands. There is a small export from private lands and Indian reserves. The trees, the timber, from public lands stay in British Columbia.

On the other aspect of that, secondary manufacturing, to the greatest extent the forest companies are able to economically, we are participating in secondary and tertiary manufacturing opportunities, recognizing that there is an economic barrier to us, sitting up here in the northwest corner of the world, if you will, relative to other places, which can manufacture products in that area, if you're envisioning things such as doors and windows.

.1910

A significant amount of that is going on in the communities in British Columbia. It tends to be on the smaller scale, with perhaps not as high a profile as the larger sawmills have.

Mrs. Jennings: Perhaps we could look at it from another angle, not within the forest companies but within individual businesses, such as furniture. We now have furniture being manufactured in Rocky Mountain House and other small communities, and it's excellent. It's being sold out. They can't keep up with the demand. It's oak and things like that. That's right in our province, Alberta.

That's where I'm saying we can look at other avenues for employment. The impact of the proposed Canada Endangered Species Protection Act doesn't necessarily have to be so strong on everybody.

The Chairman: Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, I appreciate your presentations. You've given a great deal of thought to it.

I also appreciate, because I represent a semi-rural riding, your concern about the lack of hearings. I know on this side we regret the fact that we've not been able to go to more places. As you may well know, we arrived here much later than we wanted, but we were prevented by another party, which did not want to travel at that time. I agree with you there should be as many consultations as we can have.

I don't want to get into the sort of discussion I had the last time, but as I tried to explain the last time, one of the reasons for the timing of this thing, why we want to move something through at this time, is that unlike the United States - and, by the way, unlike many other jurisdictions - we are in a situation where we can get ahead of things on endangered species. If you look at our lists, the vast majority are ``threatened'' and ``vulnerable''. A third on the list are ``vulnerable'', which is the lowest level of concern. As you go up to ``endangered'' the numbers get fewer and fewer, whereas in other jurisdictions they've lost a very high percentage of endangered species.

So I think it's very important to move through now, before our list becomes top heavy, as it is in other jurisdictions. I would suggest if we can do that we can actually avoid a lot of the expense of these tragedies you describe in small communities; we can actually get in front of this and deal with it at the preventive level, stop things from getting on the list, and when they get on the list keep them low down and then move them off the list again, rather than wait until there is a tragedy.

Don't you agree with that, that in the end, from the point of view of the industries and the communities, it's better that we get a grip on it now than that we leave it?

Mr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Adams. You do live in a truly great community. I once lived in Peterborough.

Mr. Adams: If I might ask, why did you mention Peterborough and Prince George in the same breath?

Mr. Morton: Alliteration? I'm not sure.

Mr. Adams: It's just that I have a link with both those communities. But it doesn't matter. Go ahead.

Mr. Morton: It just seems to me this legislation is so significant. I haven't heard any speaker here today say they don't want an endangered species act, but what I have heard from so many different interests is let's go slow. We're not talking ten years, we're talking maybe another year. You mentioned being held up in December because of another issue, but the fact is, as I stated earlier, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and if it means another year, so what; so what in the grand scheme of things? What's another year or year and a half?

That's my point. I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Adams: Anyone else?

Mr. Beaumont: You ask for perhaps some support for the necessity of doing this. In our presentation, and I've heard this a lot today, preventing is the key to this. Again, some of us have come back from British Columbia and the Forest Practices Code, the protected areas strategy - all these things we work with. They are burdensome and detailed and complicated, but we do work with them, and we see them all achieving that end. I guess all we can ask for in this particular piece of federal legislation is no trip-wires that would upset or jeopardize that particular process in this province.

Other than that, yes, we're all better off if we have something solid in place to prevent any type of endangerment.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Rodney.

.1915

Mr. Rodney: I think one of the things is the fact that we do have a system in place, albeit a provincial one, and we want to make sure we do not duplicate the effort of both governments.

But on top of all that, it's like anything; the more people are involved at the earlier stages, the better the buy-in at a later stage down the road. I think what I've heard here today, more and more, is let's give the opportunity for people to get involved, to get in on the ground floor. The buy-in would then make the process go a lot better. As Mike says, what's another year?

The Chairman: Mr. Rodney, that's why there were two task forces to travel the country.

Mr. Adams: As the chair has already said, this process we're in - and I agree with you on the consultation - is not the first. There have been two more. So it's taken a number of years to get to here.

Mr. Rodney: I understand that there have been two others, but I also understand that they have left people who have been involved in it with not a good taste in their mouths, let's say. I'm only reiterating what I've heard here.

Mr. Adams: If I might, if one says a year, and if we knew something could go through in a year - although as you know, it's a very particular year we're facing, so we might not - I might agree with you. But I think there has been consultation. I know it was difficult. We would have travelled if we could have. We've had extensive hearings at this round of the thing in Ottawa. I know it's difficult. We've received, by the way, a tremendous amount of e-mail and mail-type input from communities of all sorts.

I simply would leave it with you that I think a lot of your concerns are very justified if we were further down the road towards having lots and lots of species listed as endangered...and there is therefore an advantage to dealing with it while we're not in that situation. This legislation, if you look at it, deals with the current situation. It doesn't deal with a hypothetical case that we would be like the United States, with a very high percentage of endangered species listed.

Mr. Morton: As a follow-up to that, I would suggest - and you did mention that this year is somewhat unique - if it was the beginning of a new government's mandate how quickly would you be rushing this? I can't comment on the previous public participatory processes you've had with your two task forces. I don't know. I wasn't part of it. It just seems to me that if you people really firmly believe in the legislation, then you should not hesitate to want to get out there and make sure that as many Canadians as possible understand what it means to them.

This is so vital. We've gone through this so many times here in British Columbia. You go through it all the time in Ottawa. We feel alienated enough...as a westerner from Peterborough. We do. That's a fact. So why not have as many people as possible buy into it? At this point, people aren't.

Mr. Adams: It is the end of a three-year process, Mr. Morton, not the end of a one-year process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson: I guess I could ask what evidence you have to suggest that people aren't buying into it, but I'll leave that.

Mr. Morton, I think you've provided a good example of what happens to a community when social, economic, and various other costs involved in implementing conservation methods aren't properly balanced and thought out. Would you also agree with me that we should also look at communities, perhaps on the east coast of Canada, perhaps in northern Ontario, where all the trees have been cut down, and at what happens to them, how quickly they die, when we're not aggressive enough in conservation measures? Would that be a valid part of our discussion?

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Morton: Well, I didn't realize that the Endangered Species Protection Act was about cutting trees down in northern Ontario.

Mr. Knutson: It's about protecting habitat -

Mr. Morton: I understand that, but I don't quite understand what you're suggesting.

Mr. Knutson: Your point, as I understand it - and I don't want to put words in your mouth - is that we should take in social and economic costs when we introduce conservation legislation.

Mr. Morton: That's correct. The conservation and development equation is extremely complex, and there's no simple solution to either side of it.

Mr. Knutson: Insofar as you make that point, it's a legitimate point. My point is, let's look at the communities across this country that have suffered because we haven't had conservation legislation in place. Let's look at the communities that have closed down because we've done a poor job in terms of conserving various resources, whether it's the codfish stocks in eastern Canada or the trees in northern Ontario. We have to take into account the cost of another year of consultation, the cost of a lack of government activity.

.1920

The general thrust inherent in this is that you have to look at the cost when government gets involved. You have to balance that against the cost when government doesn't get involved, because communities have suffered when we haven't had conservation legislation in place.

Mr. Morton: I really don't disagree with that, but it comes back to my original point, then. Take this committee to Timmins. Take it to the east coast. Let them know what you're doing. They have no idea. The people in my community are busy trying to eke out a living - for those who still have jobs. They don't know what's going on here at the Landmark Hotel in Vancouver. They have no idea. We don't have daily newspaper or radio or whatever. We have a weekly newspaper.

The Chairman: We would also have to take it to the Queen Charlotte Islands and to the Haida people to find out what they think about the cutting of the golden spruce and so on. You can elaborate on this at length, but there will always be a diversity and a divergence of opinion, depending on where you stop.

Mr. Knutson: On this point, before I move on to another question, you might ask your member of Parliament - I don't know who it is for your area - why he or she doesn't do a better job of informing the people of what we're doing, and getting their input. Part of my job, certainly, is to make the views of the community of interests I represent in Elgin - Norfolk on Lake Erie heard, in this forum, and in Ottawa, more generally. So if you don't know what's going on, I'd suggest perhaps your member of Parliament isn't doing the job he or she should be doing.

I'll put this question to the foresters. It's been suggested by the Forest Alliance of British Columbia that British Columbia has no endangered species. I wonder whether the foresters on this panel would agree with that.

Mr. Rosenberg: I believe there are a few species the province has called ``red-listed''. They have red, blue, and yellow, with red being the most threatened. I know the spotted owl is on that list, and I think there are two or three other species as well.

Mr. Knutson: I have in front of me that a grand total of four have been listed by COSEWIC: the Vancouver Island marmot, the burrowing owl, the sea otter, and the white pelican.

Mr. Rosenberg: I thought there were four or five of them.

Mr. Knutson: So you differ with your colleague from the Forest Alliance of British Columbia.

Mr. Rosenberg: I'm going on what science and COSEWIC have said. There are a number of recovery plans either in place or being planned for those species.

Mr. Knutson: I thank you for that.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.

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

I look at this legislation in terms of protection of endangered species. I appreciate all the comments that have been made around here today about how everybody supports the concept of protecting endangered species. The critical point in all of this is identifying the endangered species, and then everything else flows from there. The science that's involved, the nature of COSEWIC, etc., is the most important part of this. If we agree with the concept of protecting endangered species, if we applaud the government for moving in this direction, then to me it's important that you support the process of getting on the list.

None of you has commented too much about that process, although Mr. Rosenberg did mention it a little bit in his presentation, of getting on the list. Do any of you have any specific comments about the listing of endangered species before we look at some of these things that come afterwards?

Okay. I don't hear much. Let me follow up.

To my mind, the listing of species is absolutely critical to the nature of this act. Following from that come the next steps. If we identify a species that's endangered, then we have a number of things we have to do to protect that species.

.1925

Mr. Rosenberg in his remarks pointed to subclause 31.(1), which says:

If our goal is to protect the species identified as endangered, what is the rationale you would give for removing the word ``take''? If you believe habitat is critical to the protection of species and you take an ecosystem-wide approach to it, why would you not want to enlarge that definition rather than diminish it?

Mr. Rosenberg: I think that definition, as I mentioned in my presentation, was focused on the individual species, be it a bird or an animal, being harmed. I think other parts of the bill take care of the habitat question you just brought up.

Mr. Taylor: Do you support the concept of protecting the habitat -

Mr. Rosenberg: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: - and would you therefore support the addition of the word ``disturbed'' in relation to habitat at the same time?

Mr. Rosenberg: I might use the spotted owl as an example as being involved in the planning. Certainly some protection has already been afforded to habitat in the creation of new parks here in the owl's range and special management measures are going to be put in place for the owl, measures that will affect companies such as Interfor in that it will restrict the harvesting activities in those areas. As an operator on public lands, we have to accept that type of planning effort. For many of the species here in B.C. there's going to be an issue around habitat and habitat protection and the management of habitat. It will be an integral part of the plan. I think if companies like Interfor can be involved in the planning at least we can have a say in what goes on and will have some input.

Mr. Taylor: You say public participation and input from the affected groups are critical in the recovery plan. However, in the final analysis, on the bottom line, it may be the protection of the habitat. If that means the withdrawal of the company from a certain area or what not, you're prepared to go that far in looking at the ultimate solution as set by a management plan.

Mr. Rosenberg: Provided the recovery plan has looked at the costs and benefits and the economics and social implications as well. That's where this critical balance comes in. It will be difficult to happen. With the spotted owl it has taken us here in the province about five years to get close to a plan, which is soon to be implemented.

Mr. Taylor: I believe very strongly in the socio-economic side of it, but to me that's always the final response to a management plan or a recovery plan. The first step is to identify the species. The second step is to ensure it's protected. Then the third step is to deal with the consequences of that, on the assumption that it has an effect on human activity, the communities, and people's involvement with each other or nature. So I don't have any problems with that socio-economic side, compensation or whatever.

One last question for Mr. Morton in that regard, because he talks about the potential impact of this legislation on his community.

About my comments on compensation and taking into account socio-economic factors just now, do you accept my premise that a community or a company, to protect a species, may in fact have to take drastic action, and if so, who is responsible for the compensation package, the federal government, the industry, communities? Should a fund be created to deal with this? What are your thoughts on taking this further?

Mr. Morton: According to the British Columbia experience, that's a $400 million question. No one seems to want to take responsibility for the changes that are taking place in the way we do business here, particularly as it relates to the forest sector, and that's unfortunate. So there's no quick answer to that.

.1930

As a follow-up to your previous question, though, I would suggest that we too are part of the habitat. We are. Many thousands of Canadians still live in rural communities. Yes, we are seeing this continual urbanization of Canada, which is extremely unfortunate. We've lost touch with our roots, ladies and gentlemen. That's a fact. There's a firm belief now in many centres that milk comes from cartons at Safeway. It doesn't.

Remember, I'm just coming back to this side of the equation again, the social and economic side. I'm repeating myself, in fact. Fine, we should have the legislation, but remember what the consequences may be.

The Chairman: Thank you. That was very helpful.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I probably have more of a comment than anything else in response to what you said, Mr. Morton, that with the increased urbanization of Canada we have lost touch with our roots.

When a tree is cut down, its roots will die. When the natural environment is cut down, obviously people don't have the opportunity to understand their relationship with the land and other living things. So I think it's very important, as you have stated very clearly, that we are part of the ecosystem, that we are part of the natural world, that we are in nature and nature is in us. I think we have to understand how inextricably we are linked with nature.

When we're talking about human activity we have to understand clearly how economics and environmental concerns must be integrated. At the root - if you want to talk about roots - or the base of any economic wealth is our biological wealth. Environmental degradation destroys the socio-economic well-being of communities in a tremendously devastating way.

I guess that's my response to your comment about milk being found in cartons.

Mr. Morton: It's interesting that so many equate cutting down trees with habitat degradation and so on. As I said at the outset, I'm not a forester, and I'm not a biologist, but in everything I've read I can find nothing that says that forestry creates endangered species. It just doesn't.

I look at the Niagara escarpment. Some of the best farming areas in the country - look at the Fraser Valley - are being bulldozed, and covered over with cement. The forest sector here I think has done tremendously well over the past 10 years or so. The forest industry as a whole is generally a dinosaur. It's very slow to move, and it has had to be pushed. But I don't think we have to keep coming back to try to equate this habitat degradation and loss of species because of forestry. There's nothing out there - I haven't seen anything out there - that says the two go together.

So some of your points are well taken, but others I just can't accept.

The Chairman: Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams: I have just been given some stats that come from the B.C. environment ministry. I have to say, I had not realized just how well off B.C. is in terms of species, which we're discussing.

For example, in the worst categories, extinct and extirpated, it says here that New York State has 97 extinct or extirpated species; Ontario has 49; and British Columbia has only 10. With respect to the discussion we have just been having on cause, urban and agricultural development is given as first - by the way, obviously there are species in the other categories as well - logging is second, livestock grazing is third, and environmental contamination is fourth. Those are the causes for whatever is going on here.

.1935

I notice that in the threatened or endangered species categories, 30% of the known species of fish are threatened or endangered. As Mr. Munro has pointed out to me, many fish are already under federal jurisdiction, so I have to be very careful how I say that. But it goes down. I have to say I think it reinforces my argument that if we can, here in B.C. in particular, get a grip on this endangered species thing early, we can save all sorts of grief, such as we've had in Ontario and such as they've had in New York State, in the future. I really do believe this.

The Chairman: All right, then, let me try again. I'll start this time from Mr. Rodney and thank him and Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. Beaumont, and Mr. Morton for their appearance today.

We appreciate your input. It seems we are gradually converting to the conclusion that a good and healthy forest has also a good and healthy wilderness content, and when the forest is gone, the wilderness is gone; or, conversely, when the wilderness is gone, there is very little forest to hope for. So we are talking of a very important interrelationship and I think we have common ground to work on here.

Having said that, I thank you again.

Our next witness is Mae Burrows, from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union.

Some of the members of this committee are wrestling with a three-hour jet lag. For us it is now 7:30 p.m. or so. Our capacity to absorb is proportional to the speed with which we can proceed, and therefore it is in your own interest to have us in an attentive and receptive mood.

Welcome to the committee, Ms Burrows. We are all ears. Please proceed.

Ms Mae Burrows (Environmental Director, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union): I will start. I hope the dulcet tones of my voice encourage other members of the committee to come and take their seats. There are even school teachers who are in the hall. I was a schoolteacher also, and I know how to speak extra loud to try to put in that authority and make everybody get in their seats.

.1940

These guys are tired. We want to get home before a snowstorm hits the west coast, as it's scheduled to do - another of our very special little moments in winter.

To begin, then, I am environmental director of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. I'm also associated with the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, which was formed in 1981 by the fishermen's union to undertake work on fish habitat and water quality.

The fishermen's union represents owner-operator fishermen, the small-boat fishermen of all gear types, as well as deckhands, tendermen, packers, and shore workers. We certainly have our share of representatives in rural communities as well as in the urban centres. We're a coast-wide organization.

Last year we celebrated our 50th anniversary, which is a pretty long time for any organization. Certainly for a trade union in an industry like fishing it's pretty commendable. We hope we'll celebrate our 100th anniversary in the fishing industry some day, because we truly believe fishing can be a sustainable enterprise if fishery management embraces a conservation principle and if habitat is protected.

We are an organization that understands profoundly the essential link between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, and we think it can work such that sustainability can actually mean something. Our members and their friends in coastal communities depend on healthy salmon runs for their livelihood. In turn, the salmon require healthy habitats. In our view, degradation and destruction of habitat is the single most important factor creating vulnerability for endangered species. I dare say it's not just a perception on our part but a very long understanding of it.

Just last year, Tim Slaney of the American Fisheries Society, one of the experts in North America on fishery issues, undertook a study of stocks in British Columbia. Unfortunately, there are 142 documented cases of salmon stocks that have become extinct. He says in his report:

I've been listening to Peter Adams all day and I find that he's been scooping a lot of my lines. I think one of the main things that can happen here with this legislation is that we can have forward-looking, proactive legislation that stops the damage before it gets to the point it got to in the States. There they waited until they had more than 200 species on their endangered list before they started moving on it. My understanding is that we have about 60 on our endangered list.

So the whole idea in my presentation is to try to make some suggestions to support the proactive nature of the legislation and perhaps make it even more proactive. In particular, I'll talk about that in terms of strong management plans for vulnerable species. That's where I want to start from.

We have four points we want to make. You've heard a number of them already. I realize that it is 7 p.m. your time, so I will not elaborate on them fully.

First, I believe we should have it in this legislation that COSEWIC should be responsible for...that they will make the listings and that the federal minister must make regulations. Anybody who knows anything about fishing, the fishing industry and fish politics understands how highly politicized and manipulated that arena is.

.1945

Certainly the east coast fishermen and scientists for years were saying the catch should be reduced. Here in British Columbia, all we need to do is look at the 1987 Kemano completion agreement, which completely flew in the face of any scientific evidence. The scientific evidence said we should never take more than 30% of the water out of the river. Kemano I today is still taking60% of the water out of the river. But the scientists who were asked to rule on the Kemano completion project, Kemano II, said for sure you can't take 87% of the water out of the river. Nonetheless, the politicians made that decision, overrode the scientific plea not to do that, and today the Nechako is still a sick and dying river.

We would like to see the federal fisheries minister out here working on it a bit too, so when you go back to Ottawa perhaps you could encourage him to do that. Even though it's cancelled, we're still losing 70% of the river.

The situation in British Columbia is that fish just don't have a right to water. We would like to see the scientific information that says they need certain bodies of water, certain temperatures of water, decided by COSEWIC. So our recommendation is that COSEWIC will make the listing and the minister must make regulations.

Our second and main point regards habitat. Of course we don't like the term ``residence'', especially when you think of a highly migratory species such as salmon, which is in the ocean, in Georgia Strait, for part of its life. Coho spend two years in little streams that are oftentimes destroyed by urban projects, certainly by hydroelectric dams and so on, as well as water quality. Don't just think habitat but think of the toxins and poisons that go into the rivers and streams where the fish have to swim. We need a more holistic view of what residence is.

I actually commend this very committee for your forward thinking and for embracing today's paradigms instead of clinging to yesterday's paradigm when you were on the CEPA legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where you said an ecosystem approach should be adapted, so you see not just the stone the fish spawns under, the egg incubates under, but the bank and the entire watershed, and we have to start taking an approach like that. I would really encourage you to change ``residence'' to something that resembles a more ecological approach.

Your report on that piece of legislation went on to define ``ecosystem'' as a:

What I want to suggest mainly is in listing vulnerable species one way you could strengthen this legislation is to have management plans for vulnerable species that are as strong as the recovery plans you have for endangered species, so you go to that point and have the community involved, have the problem defined, start trying to solve it at that stage, as opposed to letting it lumber on in its inevitable way to an extinction problem. When you're listing vulnerable species, have management plans that are as strong as the recovery plans.

Further to that, certainly the experience I have is that it's very important that citizens have a right to point out when they are starting to see trouble. I would really like to see the bill enlarged. Add to the definition of which projects will be assessed and the fact that citizens can bring that to everyone's attention, because they are the ones who are out there; they are the ones who see things. I think strong, active citizen involvement is a positive thing.

My third point is that I would encourage the strongest possible legislation at the federal level, so when we have the province mirroring it it's very strong.

About a legislated versus cooperative approach, I have been very much involved in these various consultations, not just in forestry but in urban development and...a huge consultation is suggested for water management plans and Hydro. Volunteers have to go trudging along to all of those, and it's very difficult, because very frequently there are strategic negotiations where volunteers without a lot of resources and expertise and so on are at a disadvantage. The status quo often wins in those negotiations because they have their obvious resources there. So a word of caution with that.

.1950

We're in a project right now where we're involved in repairing some streams in Langley, which is an agricultural community. What we can do is help a farmer who I don't think understood the full value of the coho stream on his land. Coho are one of the species we're concerned about. We are helping him; putting gumboots on, helping change the habitat, and so on. But I dare say people get more creative and more cooperative when there's a big stick, and I think that's what legislation does. At the community level we need lots of cooperation, but let's have something in the car, too.

Finally, I very much support a number of the things the IWA and SHARE groups were saying. I have in here a section from the brief that was presented to you by the Canadian Labour Congress through the Canadian Auto Workers union. We are members of the CLC. We ask this committee to insert into the bill a clause that is more explicit and requires that the needs and predicament of workers in the communities be addressed. We suggest that this become an integral part of a recovery plan.

Of course everywhere this situation occurs.... I don't have a big master plan, but let's remember for sure the people who are going to pay big time for the kinds of changes we are making in this society. We need to make sure the human and socio-economic aspect is really respected.

Thank you. I'm under time, right?

The Chairman: You are tremendously under time. It's amazing. Thank you very much.

Next is Vicki Husband.

Ms Vicki Husband (Conservation Chair, Sierra Club of British Columbia): I'm conservation chair of the Sierra Club of British Columbia, and we've been involved and established since 1969, so for 25 years, in British Columbia.

I'm not going to make a very legalistic presentation. I think that was done extremely well, especially by the three presenters on the first panel this morning. We support everything they say. The Sierra Club is part of the Endangered Species Coalition. You also heard from Elizabeth May in Ottawa. As a born-here British Columbian, and having lived a lot of my time in a rural area, I do understand what's going on, so that's what I'm going to address.

I come from a province with an incredibly strong timber lobby. You just saw it. We have a very hard time protecting anything here. It's extremely difficult. Fish don't even have a right to water in British Columbia. I think you really have to recognize some of the problems we're up against.

What I want to say to you is we need equivalent legislation here in British Columbia. There is no equivalent legislation, and I don't see any on the horizon, not at all. The B.C. Forest Practices Code does not protect endangered species. There are provisions for protecting identified wildlife, but not one species has been designated yet. We don't even have the identified wildlife guidebook yet. It is like having zero species listed under Bill C-65.

Before we can protect biodiversity we have to have landscape units. We have zero landscape units designated. I have talked to many people in the Ministry of Environment and many of them are saying they are very depressed and demoralized. They are saying we're worse off than we were three years ago. So I think you have to understand that some of us feel in a bit of a state of siege now. It is a very serious situation.

The Forest Practices Code is the bare minimum, and they now have put a 6% on top of that, saying you cannot have impacts beyond 6% on the rate of cut province-wide. On the coast it's something like 9.2%, but if we're going to talk about species, you're allowed a 1% impact for species. This means you have to have 75% of your wildlife - trees - in your riparian zones, along the rivers. It doesn't mean across the landscape.

I pass this out just to show you graphically the difference between residence and critical habitat. I think you really need to understand why we have been going on about that and why it is so important.

I have some problems, like the people in the morning, and I want to reiterate what they said, that Bill C-65 applies to only 1.1% of the B.C. land base. This is a serious concern to us all. Spotted owls are endangered. Do we mean to say they have to fly to our airports, to our Indian reserves, to our national parks, to be safe?

.1955

Watch carefully in the next few weeks. Let's judge the B.C. government on how adequately it protects the spotted owl. At the moment there has been a high level of political interference. This is what you get when there are no laws, or lawlessness. Let's watch what happens to the Selkirk herd of the mountain caribou out by Revelstoke. There will be decisions made there in the next few weeks or in the next month that will affect whether or not it survives. Then we'll see how well the province protects endangered species and how well it looks after things. I think it's really important.

I have seen absolutely no commitment to bring in endangered species legislation in this province, and I'm very worried. I think that's where you need to show leadership and make sure that we get equivalent legislation on the B.C. level, and that it does protect critical habitats, that it does protect all the migratory species, including raptors, and that it does protect beyond what you're saying now.

We don't want to give our children an IOU for biodiversity. We really don't. We want to protect their future.

I see what is happening here as very serious. I listened all day here. I remember the figures from the 1980s, where 25,000 jobs were lost primarily due to mechanization. We hear of a few jobs here and there - maybe in South Moresby it was 70 or 80 direct jobs - but they pale in comparison.

I live on southern Vancouver Island. I'm in my fifties. I've watched the mills shut down in Victoria, in Honeymoon Bay, in Sooke. In Port Renfrew there's practically nobody working in the industry. Why? It isn't because we've protected any species or wildlife habitats, or really any old growth; it's because we've overcut. We've mismanaged.

You can't fix the San Juan River. It was a major salmon river, as was the Gordon. They are not fixable. Maybe in hundreds and hundreds of years they will re-establish.

We have an establishment now of a watershed restoration project, which I'm really pleased about. They've listed rivers all over British Columbia that have been damaged. They're trying to ``rehabilitate''. That is the right word, not ``restoration''. They can't restore. The cost for that is estimated to be $1 billion.

When you hear the forest industry saying - well, of course we know it's not true - that they've never damaged anything, or have never damaged habitat.... As Mae said, 142 races of salmon have become extinct.

When we were fighting for South Moresby, I remember Dr. Bristol Foster saying that races of salmon are becoming extinct every year on the coast. We knew that in the 1980s and we knew that in the 1970s. We haven't really changed. I've seen those rivers.

So it is a serious situation. I want to make sure we have legislation that will list these endangered races of salmon in these rivers. This is the only way we're going to have any move in that direction.

Jack Munro, I remember well - and this was reported in The New York Times - was the one who told his IWA members to shoot at the spotted owl. I don't see him ever being supportive of any endangered species legislation.

Again, I warn you about the power of the timber lobby and the millions of dollars in that timber lobby here in British Columbia.

The Forest Practices Code...if anybody uses that as an equivalent legislation to protect endangered species. Apart from all the other problems I've pointed out in the Forest Practices Code there's inadequate protection of fish habitat. I think you'll hear about that in the next month or so, because the Sierra Legal Defence Fund is working on a report on the clear-cutting of riparian management zones, which was never meant to happen, clear-cutting of small streams, misclassification of streams, and on it goes. Sometimes they don't even classify or identify them, and they're just gone.

The Forest Practices Code does not address mining impacts, oil and gas impacts, agricultural impacts, urban development impacts, and hydro-development impacts. Let's be clear, B.C. has no endangered species legislation.

You've heard a lot about land use planning. The Sierra Club is very involved in land use planning, but let's make no mistake; just protecting 12% of the province of British Columbia, with the incredibly high biodiversity we have here, will not protect biodiversity across the landscape. It just won't. You can't have these islands that are protected and then nuke the rest of the landscape. It won't work.

The industry says it wants only 30% of that land base. Well, that's virtually every valley bottom and every critical fish and wildlife habitat. That is what we're worried about. We have to have something that looks at balance, that looks at the whole issue, and that's why we need endangered species legislation.

.2000

When they tell you to go slow, if you've had three years of consultation you have to go faster, because we've had a hundred years of logging and it's having impacts. We don't want to reach the situation they have in the Pacific northwest, where 5% of their old growth forest was left. They didn't listen when the spotted owl and other endangered species should have been listed in the 1970s. That's why they came down where they were.

There are a lot of things. I can tell other stories. Rivers Inlet used to have 1 million to 2 million sockeye. They had maybe 40,000 sockeye return this year. There was no commercial fishery in Rivers Inlet. These things are happening all over. We are beginning to see a collapse of wildlife species in a lot of areas: the grizzly bear, the mountain caribou. It's not just the spotted owl. I always think salmon are B.C.'s spotted owl. We want to protect them, and we want to protect them into the future.

That's about where I am. I want to make sure you have scientists listing. The COSEWIC people, the committee, should be the people who make the final decision. This is extremely important. Critical habitat is extremely important. Political will and legislation are absolutely necessary to make legislation work.

I really appreciate the fact that you've come to Vancouver. It's not my home town. I had to travel to come here, and I'm really pleased to have had the opportunity to speak before this committee. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hunter, please.

Mr. Michael Hunter (President, Fisheries Council of British Columbia): Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

I represent the Fisheries Council of British Columbia. I'm president of that organization. We are a trade association that represents the major fish processing companies in this province. These are companies that buy fish from fishermen and process it into usable food products for consumption here in Canada and abroad. I might add that about $1 billion of seafood products are manufactured in British Columbia every year. This is about the same value as is produced in Nova Scotia, so we're quite important.

I think it almost goes without saying that as an organization whose members depend on a continuing supply of natural resources, i.e. fish, for their business, we do have a very great interest in conservation and sustainable harvest of those resources. We believe this piece of legislation is extremely important, and I find myself in agreement with much of the concern Mae and Vicki have just expressed to you, but we do differ on a couple of issues.

Before I get into those, I just want to say our organization, and I personally, have spent many months of our lives trying to make sure Canadian fisheries conservation systems work, domestically and internationally. We are committed to spending many hours a month on domestic and international advisory systems. I personally serve as a representative of Canada on the Pacific Salmon Commission, and my colleagues serve on other bodies. I want to make sure you understand that despite the fact that I am representing business interests I do think we have qualifications as a witness before this committee that offset what might be called the ``big business bias'' that is sometimes exhibited around conservation issues.

I have three major observations I wish to make, ladies and gentlemen. I find myself in disagreement with the previous two speakers, and I will give you the reason why I am in disagreement.

The first is on the issue of COSEWIC's proposed structure and their responsibility under the legislation for listing species. I find that proposal is contrary to what we have come to know in Canada as ministerial accountability. We can debate whether or not ministers are accountable, but theoretically and legally they are. I find the legislation provides little in the way of checks and balances. What COSEWIC says goes, and I think we have to be concerned about that.

Therefore, and I will get to the reasons why I think this is the case, apart from the jurisdiction in the federal Fisheries Act and the Canada Oceans Act, very strong pieces of legislation, we believe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must continue to have the responsibility for recommending the listing of aquatic species to the Governor in Council under this piece of legislation and he must be responsible and accountable for the design and delivery of any recovery plans that may be necessary.

.2005

From a legal point of view, I would say to you that the federal Fisheries Act and the Canada Oceans Act are strong and impressive pieces of legislation. They give to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans all the power he needs to make sure the purposes of this bill are carried out.

From a practical point of view, I want to focus on another issue that concerns me greatly. That is the issue of the listing of aquatic species. I will leave copies...and I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I have been a little rushed over the last few weeks. There has been a lot of politics around the fishing industry out here, as you probably know.

I want to make the point that I believe has been made to you in part by some people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and that is the question of listing a stock; when is a stock vulnerable or when is it endangered? If we were to use the IUCN criteria, I'm afraid we would be in danger of being ridiculous and Canada's proposed endangered species act would look ridiculous.

Let me show you at a glance the variability of catches of sockeye salmon. This goes back to 1873. If catches, as I believe they are in the British Columbia context, are a proxy for overall abundance, you can see with that example - and all the five salmon species exhibit the same kind of variability, ups and downs, year in, year out - the danger would be that somebody would say, well, sockeye catches have gone down, sockeye abundance is down 50% over the last ten years. Well, we have lots of examples where over a ten-year period a population of fish has declined, only to recover naturally.

You have to ask, why is that? Well, fishing is only one part of the life cycle of a sockeye salmon or a Pacific herring, or for that matter an Atlantic lobster. We have seen, and I believe we will continue to see, that kind of natural variability in stocks, and we must take that into account in designing an endangered species act so that act indeed focuses on the problems and not on the natural variability.

From the data I have seen, if you look at Atlantic lobster...I'm not an expert in that, but I think the population of Atlantic lobster since 1990 has declined by about the 50% that under IUCN rules would render it vulnerable. Yet the biomass of lobster off Atlantic Canada is higher than it has been since the 1940s or 1950s.

We have to be very careful to recognize first that aquatic species are a little different from land-based species. They are difficult to measure. Salmon in a sense are the easiest, because at least they do come to land during their life cycle, but many and most species do not, so they are hard to measure. They are subject to natural variability that has nothing to do with human endeavour.

As another example I would cite the problems we have had in recent years with chinook salmon, spring salmon, in British Columbia, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. These salmon, which are subject to interception in Alaskan fisheries to the north of us as well as in Canadian commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries, were decimated by environmental conditions off the west coast of Vancouver Island in 1992 and 1993. I think it's a credit to the Canadian government and Canadian science that we designed a management plan to ensure those stocks did and will survive, even though we have an Alaskan problem we seem unable to solve.

I would submit that by and large and overall, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a mandate and has the knowledge base, both domestically and internationally, that can put into perspective the kind of variations we see in aquatic species populations. Therefore I have to urge caution in the design of the plan and the criteria that would see aquatic species listed.

My last point on this would be that IUCN listed Atlantic cod. I think IUCN is suffering some embarrassment as a result of the listing of Atlantic cod, because the scientific information from around the North Atlantic is pretty clear that while in Canada we have had a cod crisis, the causes of which are not clear to everybody, that doesn't mean Atlantic cod is an endangered species.

.2010

So I must urge caution on how we are going to try to achieve the very clear and proper objectives of this piece of legislation in an aquatic environment, where human activity in many cases has perhaps the least, or at least a minor, impact on the survival of the populations. It is with that in mind that we would recommend, further to the COSEWIC question, that membership in COSEWIC, if COSEWIC is to list the species under some rather careful guidelines and criteria for fish...that I'm a little concerned that in its membership COSEWIC will not include an appropriate complement of Canadian fisheries scientists. Whether they're government scientists or people working in the academic realm, there are lots of good fisheries scientists in Canada, and I would at least want to see that COSEWIC's considerations of aquatic listings are clearly subject to a fisheries science regimen rather than the regimen of biologists whose experience is perhaps more with land-based species.

With those observations, members of the committee, I would say the Fisheries Council of British Columbia again considers this legislation to be very important. We're not environmental experts, although we do believe we have an excellent grounding in conservation issues, which we exercise on a daily basis. We believe the bill is appropriate if we can be assured the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will retain his or her legal authority to act to conserve Canada's fish stocks, as is the case under the federal Fisheries Act and the Canada Oceans Act. We don't think the application of the minister's current authority is at all inconsistent with the intent of this bill. It's simply to clarify that the current department, acting for Parliament, continues to have that authority.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I have made the points I wanted to make to you. I would like to leave these charts with your clerk. I do apologize for not being able to give them to you before. They quite dramatically make my point about the variability of fish stocks, and I think this is an area where you really should pay some attention to the bill as it sits now.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much.

Earlier we heard allusions to what the Province of British Columbia may or may not do with passing parallel legislation, so I want to ask specifically in your discussions at the provincial level what your impression is of the B.C. commitment to the accord they signed. All provinces did sign an accord. It had some nice-sounding phrases in it. Specifically, what is your estimation of theB.C. will, or the political will, you might say, of the current Clark NDP administration, to pass parallel endangered species legislation?

Ms Husband: I don't think we are seeing very much commitment to that. They're trying to say the Forest Practices Code or the Wildlife Act are sufficient. I've heard that. I have seen no movement. If we didn't get it under the Harcourt regime.... We have seen a decline in the importance of protection of the environment under the Clark government, and I see even less commitment to this kind of legislation than before.

I guess that was my point on making a reference to the strong timber lobby and this kind of situation in which we find ourselves in British Columbia. We're close to this and they are absolutely opposed. They keep saying they are doing things differently and everything is fine, and if that's the case there should be open arms to stronger legislation, because there's no problem in the woods. But you obviously didn't hear that. You heard a really strong lobby against this bill.

They're not worried so much about your bill. They're worried about the precedent and what kind of impact it might have on equivalent legislation in British Columbia. That's what it's about.

I can't understand how somebody like Mike Morton, from Ucluelet, which I've lived in and I know well.... I know it and I know Tofino. I have a residence there. I know the area. This bill of yours will not affect that community. I can say that unequivocally. It will not affect that community.

.2015

What they're worried about is what can happen in B.C., and that's why you're seeing the strong lobby against your legislation. That should send a strong message, because otherwise they wouldn't be worried, would they, if everything were fine?

Ms Burrows: I'd like to add to that.

We have an organization called the B.C. Fish Habitat Protection Council, which is something the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation brought together. It consists of groups that work on fish habitat issues. It's a wide-ranging group, from the Outdoor Recreation Council to Greenpeace. It covers many different groups, but they all have something in common: they're concerned about fish habitat.

We have had occasion to meet with ministers, both federal and provincial, and we've had a number of senior government officials from the province meet with us. We've spoken to them explicitly about endangered species legislation, and the explicit answer I got was, ``We the province are working on a fish omnibus bill, and that is all you will see in this legislation. You will not see any endangered species, so quit being on about it right now'', more or less. That's a very explicit answer.

I also want to highlight and speak to some of these issues around forest practices. What we are seeing is that often a high amount of discretion is given to local forest managers in approving forest plans. That's one of the problems we've always had with the forest practices code, and it's coming home to roost now.

We're seeing situations where there is an incredible amount of misclassification or unclassification of salmon streams, or else they will allow fairly heavy logging above and below a salmon stream, but then how do the fish get up there to the spawning grounds? So there are still a lot of problems with the Forest Practices Code.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin area is home to the Quesnel runs, which are probably the largest sockeye runs in the world. The Adams and Quesnel watersheds trade back and forth as to what's the largest sockeye run. It's very difficult for us to be part of that process, because we're not seen as local people in that watershed.

When I say Quesnel, I'm talking about Williams Lake and up towards Quesnel and Prince George, many miles up the Fraser River, but of course what goes on in that watershed in terms of clear-cutting at the headwaters is going to have a tremendous impact on fishers on Malcolm Island, because they're the ones who catch those fish. We have been told we are not part of that land use planning process and we're very much outsiders.

So one of the problems with the whole sense of local planning and so on is it doesn't respect people from other watersheds who do in fact have an interest. We're having a really big fight. The situation that ends up happening is a consultation gridlock, where we have to go to every single one of these meetings to monitor what's going on with fish.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin the fight we're presently engaged in is to simply try to get hydrological studies done that will show us that the 40% and 50% logging in high-fish value watersheds that is proposed is not going to hurt fish.

Well, instead of having that happen, now we're understanding that there have been some meetings, and it looks as though what will happen is they'll do what's called an integration plan, which is supposed to integrate all the values, before they have information on fisheries.

I'm just reporting my experience with the Forest Practices Code, and it's not feeling really good. And it's really expensive and hard for us to get up to Williams Lake, too.

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Hunter, you say in your submission:

Can you expand on that a little bit? When you say, ``one source of advice'', I say who else? Some political body? Are we not going to have science over politics? What are you talking about here?

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Forseth, I am trying to make the point that fish are somewhat different from land-based species. The scientific disciplines are different. Their life cycles are different. To me, the listing of species by COSEWIC ought to have a larger-than-normal dose of fisheries science in it.

.2020

I'm not proposing a political process or anything else, but we would be foolish to let a group of 15 people, with maybe one or two fisheries scientists, make decisions about the listing of species, given this variability, when we have scientific excellence in Canada that can guide that committee perhaps better than some non-fisheries people could. That's my only point.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

We have now Madam Payne, followed by Mr. Knutson, Mr. Adams, Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Jennings, Mr. Steckle, and the chair.

Madam Payne.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My comments and questions are mostly directed to Mr. Hunter.

First of all, I'm sure most people in Newfoundland must have wished that a discussion such as this took place 20 years ago, because that's exactly when the people who were harvesting the fish stocks there began to notice a decline in the fish stocks. At that time the numbers were very much greater than they are right now. I'll come back to that point in a moment.

I wanted to mention the lobster. You talked about the lobster stocks and how healthy they are. I have to refute that, because lobster stocks off the east coast of Canada, with the exception of some parts of Nova Scotia, are lower than they've ever been. I can tell you that in Newfoundland they're almost at the devastation stage in some areas.

When is a stock vulnerable or endangered? That's open to interpretation, especially when you're dealing with stocks as large as the cod stocks. You mentioned that IUCN had wanted to list Atlantic cod stocks as...I thought it was extinct, but I'm not sure; I could be wrong. You said endangered, and your presentation said endangered, so I'm prepared to accept that.

However, talking about Atlantic cod stocks is much different from talking about northern cod stocks. It's the northern cod stocks that are endangered or vulnerable at this point, and I think they are vulnerable. I've said that before, and in fact I would propose having them listed as vulnerable.

I'm sure you're talking about some reports that came out recently that indicate the cod are coming back. I can tell you with certainty that the stocks we're seeing now off the east coast of Newfoundland have no comparison at all with what they were even 10 years ago. My great fear at this point is that companies are now putting pressure on governments and others to reopen the fishery. The fishermen, even though at this point they're living on anywhere between $250 and $350 a week, don't want to be doing that. They fear that if the fishery returns it will in fact deplete the stock completely.

I mentioned a little while ago that the large harvesting operations sold their draggers and trawlers to England and other parts of Europe. I sat with somebody on a plane not long ago and he was on his way back from England, having gone over to supervise the refurbishing of these same vessels to bring them back. I shudder to think that these will ever appear in our waters again. Even the small scallop draggers that are operating at the moment....

I can tell you very little effort will diminish these stocks completely.

Probably I've said all of the things I need to say, except that we in Newfoundland are under great pressure to keep the stocks closed while harvesters are putting pressure on government to in fact reopen them.

Ms Husband: We support you completely of course. We worry about the draggers and the overfishing of capelin as well, not just the cod. We are watching what's going on.

The Chairman: Mr. Hunter, are you able to give a brief response?

.2025

Mr. Hunter: I would like to give a brief response, Mr. Chairman.

Far be it from me to make judgments about what goes on in Atlantic Canada, and I can say that we're not one of the harvesting groups putting that pressure on. The point I would draw from your comments is that there has to be, and we support, the notion of an authority that is vested in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be accountable to make the decisions that count on harvesting. I don't have a problem with that.

What I'm arguing in front of you, though, is that the listing of the species, the criteria that are used, is critical not just to the economy that might or might not depend on those stocks but to whether or not this piece of legislation has any credibility in the fisheries world. I'm not arguing against the legislation. I'm not a scientist so I can't say whether my observations about Atlantic cod are more valid than yours. But I can say that every fish stock that inhabits Canadian fisheries waters is subject to natural variability irrespective of human activity. We must take those variations into account if we're to have an act that means that when a stock is found to be vulnerable, it is vulnerable and not just in a downslope in a long-term period of abundance.

To me, this becomes a question of credibility. I don't think we have an argument. I am prepared to support this legislation, but I think we have to be very careful about how we do it in fisheries terms. That's my response to you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hunter, I just want to say off the top that I concur that the listing has to be based on sound reasoning and science and has to take into account historical swings, up or down. I don't see that as a difficult thing to do necessarily. There is no question that if you're dealing with a fish population, you should have an expert in fish science doing the research and making a recommendation about whether it should be listed. You don't have to say a lot to convince me of that. I don't speak for the others, but I'm sure we probably all buy that - the government as well.

I'd like to raise a couple of points with you. At the top of the third page in your brief you talk about recommendations and what government ministers should be responsible for. You point out that from your perspective there is really no good reason for any minister, other than the Minister of Fisheries, to be involved in the development of a recovery plan.

By way of analogy, there is currently a piece of legislation that deals with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. If a pesticide company wants to have pesticide approved for use on the farm, they have to have it approved by this agency. At one time that agency was under the ambit of Agriculture Canada, and there was a sense that Agriculture Canada was dealing with these pesticide companies on an ongoing basis and they were lobbied by the farm community. It was more appropriate for that review agency to be under the ambit of Health Canada, which could take one step back from the farm lobby. It was really a clear signal that human health concerns would be paramount with regard to approval for pesticides and that the agricultural concerns, while important, would be secondary to the human health concerns.

When we're dealing with an endangered species, is there a point where we can say the environmental concerns have to be paramount and maybe it therefore belongs within the ambit of the Minister of the Environment, similar to the way the Minister of Health is responsible for pesticides?

Mr. Hunter: I have a couple of observations.

First, I think the fish lobby in Canada is at least the three of us. There are lots of diverse views that are aired.

Second, if the COSEWIC listing process...if we agree there is a need for some real discipline and a careful look at the criteria -

Mr. Knutson: We do.

Mr. Hunter: - okay - and if a species is listed, I would argue that the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act give the Minister of Fisheries the power to do what is necessary. It's through those acts that we regulate all the fishing activity and the science activity that goes on in Canada.

.2030

The Minister of Fisheries is a member of the government and a member of Parliament and will obviously be subject to the requirements of this legislation. Why do you need the Minister of the Environment getting in the way of the Minister of Fisheries applying the terms of the Fisheries Act? I have some difficulty in understanding why that would be needed and why you need to water down the authority of the Minister of Fisheries.

I would think it would be more sensible in the legislation to ensure that if there's a listing, the Minister of Fisheries has to do something. I can't imagine the situation where he would not be able to do that if the law of the land said he was responsible. You're empowering the Minister of Fisheries in my scenario, rather than somehow creating.... I know there are going to be ministerial arguments if you get two ministers in a room. I've seen it, and so have you.

I see it as an unnecessary dissipation of ministerial time and energy. You have a guy who's guided and is responsible for the two acts. If a species is listed, you have to close the fishery. Who has the legal authority to do it? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Why give that to somebody else and confuse the issue?

Ms Husband: I would differ in that it should be the Minister of the Environment. That's where the Endangered Species Protection Act should lie and that's the final resting place. We're environment.

We have seen a lot of problems. We're starting to see a shift in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but there are still major problems in that department. We see the northern cod. How far do we have to look? We've seen a lot of devastation of some of the stocks on the west coast of Canada. There have been problems.

They're starting to go with a risk aversion fishery. I don't think it's good enough. There are problems with by-catch. There are problems with all kinds of other things out there, which we won't get into.

But if it lies with the Minister of the Environment.... That's obviously a differing view, but it's important, and we're looking right across the board. It goes to habitat and everywhere.

We've found real problems with the federal Fisheries Act because it's retroactive. It's like punishing the bank robber after the bank is robbed, after the damage has been done. It really doesn't seem to be very good at being proactive, at actually protecting the resource first, and we want to see more of that.

Mr. Knutson: Ms Burrows, do you want to jump in on this?

Ms Burrows: I see very tired people around this table.

Mr. Knutson: Oh, no, I'm fine. I'm getting my second wind here.

Ms Burrows: Not you, but some other people.

Mr. Knutson: As a point of clarification, the committee's expert has indicated to me that under the act, ``the responsible minister'' does mean the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to aquatic species.

Mr. Hunter: I know that's been an issue of some debate. The purpose of my brief was to try to emphasize that I think that's the right way to go.

Ms Burrows: We don't have any problem with COSEWIC including Canadian scientists who have experience with aquatic species.

Mr. Knutson: I hope not.

Ms Burrows: That makes some sense. So there's not necessarily a conflict on that point.

Mr. Knutson: Of course not.

Let me go off track for a second and raise an issue that's a small hobby of mine.

Mr. Hunter, you mentioned that the large increases and decreases in fish stock are part of the normal pattern and not the result of human activity. I wonder if you're aware of the mounting evidence of the effect human activity is having on global warming and climate change. That, possibly far more than European trawlers or overfishing, is having a devastating impact on fish populations. Should we become more alarmed about climate change and the human activity that's causing it?

Mr. Hunter: My short answer is I don't know. But with respect to salmonid populations in the north Pacific Ocean, there appears to be a clear link between certain weather patterns off the Aleutian Islands and the abundance of salmon throughout its range. There are clearly environmental impacts when the salmon are on the high seas for two or three years. Clearly human activity has something to do with it, but so does the environment.

Where that will end up I don't know. The information available to us at the moment suggests we are moving into a more favourable marine environment in the north Pacific Ocean, and we're beginning to see a rebuilding of stocks of fish up the Columbia River, for example, despite all its environmental problems, to the kinds of levels we saw in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

.2035

There's no question the linkage is there. To what extent an increase in global warming will affect us in the long term, your guess is as good as mine.

Ms Husband: I think it's one of the most serious issues we're facing. As you're all parliamentarians, I would like to urge your government, from every side, to actually take some action on the global climate change. There shouldn't be voluntary regulations on the part of the industry to try to lead - we were meant to have signed all kinds of global warming and climate change treaties, and we are doing very little as Canadians. Frankly, I find it very disturbing, as well as the lack of leadership in Ottawa on this issue. It has to be mandatory or we're not going to get change. I think it's not just going to affect our fishery; it will affect our forests and everything we do.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we've just touched on something that is very fundamental.

Mr. Hunter, I'm very pleased you're here. You probably weren't here around 8:30 a.m., but I mentioned that on the plane a person spoke to me at great length about salmon and species and so on. To me, it's one of these fantastic mysteries, the salmon cycle. I've never seen a run here, although the Adams River is named after me, or someone like me, and I do have family in Kamloops.

By the way, I understand next year's run is going to be huge. I hope I'll get to see that. There is that whole mystery of the north Pacific and the salmon out there and all of them coming back.

This is not exactly relevant, but you mentioned the IUCN. Is your council involved in the transboundary species legislation with the IUCN and the business of the high seas and fisheries regulation and conservation?

Mr. Hunter: No, Mr. Adams, what we are involved in, along with many other stakeholders in British Columbia in the fishery, is primarily the Canada-U.S.A. Pacific salmon treaty, which attempts to deal with issues of conservation management and harvest sharing for stocks that migrate across the international boundaries, north and south.

We are also involved, and have been for a number of years, in trans-Pacific organizations. The current version includes the U.S., Canada, Japan, and Russia. Russia is a relative newcomer to this organization, but we do participate in their discussions, and of course Canadian scientists are an integral part of that.

To the extent that we can keep an eye on what is going on in the world of resources and resource management, which our businesses depend on, yes, we're pretty heavily involved, I think.

Mr. Adams: Quite a few of us followed Brian Tobin and some of those efforts and some of the international negotiations that have been going on about fish on the high seas.

I've read about the Europeans' first view of these salmon runs, and I sort of know about - although our clerk would be very pleased to copy those diagrams you have - this innate.... I understand that point, that it's been very careful on the basis of this year, predicting something for next year, and so on.

This person on the plane mentioned to me these 142 races of salmon - if ``races'' is the right word - that have gone. As I understand those races, their identity comes from the rivers they were born in and that they come back to. So you have curves for salmon, the different species, doing this, but in there, 142 of these races have gone. That suggests to me that it has nothing to do with the variability on your charts, but it has to do - I don't say there are 142 rivers - with 142 land situations. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Adams, I think the American Fisheries Society was the organization that claimed the 142, and there's some doubt in some quarters about the veracity of that number.

I would say to you that there are six species of Pacific salmon resident in British Columbia. They are produced in something over - Mae or Vicki probably know the number better than I do - 1,500 streams. The combinations and permutations are almost endless.

.2040

I don't know where some of these stocks came from or where they were extinguished, but people talk about the paving over of streams in what is now Greater Vancouver. I'm sure some local stocks have disappeared. I have no doubt about that. And I'm sure if we carry on the way we are in developing southern B.C., we will lose more, unfortunately.

With the permutations and combinations, I would suggest to you that with the best management in the world and improved management on Canada's behalf, you are almost bound to have a situation where you're going to misjudge or mismanage what goes on. It's almost inevitable.

If the number is correct, it's unfortunate, but it's now history. While I would say we have to get better so it doesn't happen again, I think we would be unrealistic if we thought that with that kind of combination and permutation.... With the best will in the world and the best legislation in the world, there is a chance, with human interaction, that we're not going to be totally successful.

Mr. Adams: It seems to me it's a part of this great mystery - and it might be a small part - that we can actually control. It's that part of their environment - the run up to the spawning grounds, the spawning grounds, and the watershed situation of those spawning grounds - that we can control.

Mr. Hunter: Part of the problem you have to recognize is we're not necessarily masters of our own house throughout British Columbia either.

I've referred to the Pacific Salmon Commission. I don't intend to blame the Americans for problems in Canada, because that's a pretty futile exercise, but you have to recognize that there are harvesting issues in Alaska that are without question impacting on the management of Canadian stocks, especially in the north and in the chinook stocks off the west coast of Vancouver Island that I mentioned.

We could have had a situation in 1996 where, with a Canadian management system - and it's hard to see how it could get any tougher, because nobody was allowed to take any chinook salmon and keep them - we could still have had an environmental accident by virtue of Alaskan behaviour.

Mr. Adams: My point, though, is it seems to me extremely unlikely that fishing practices in the ocean could affect the stock of one river. I imagine all these fish swimming around and people taking them out, and the chance of them all coming from river 142 or river 53 are very slight. That's the point I would make. In other words, it is something we can control.

Mr. Hunter: What I'm struggling with is that you're beginning to learn what I learned a long time ago: you learn something new every day about salmon. I'm not sure if we have the time to go into all the complexities.

Vicki, why don't you have a go at it?

Ms Husband: Yes, I'd like to make a point.

What you're getting at really is that for a long time we've had a very non-selective fishery about salmon. We haven't considered all the smaller stocks, and there's enormous by-catch of the smaller stocks. The most obvious is steelhead, which people have made more of a thing about, but there are all the other smaller stocks.

We've managed for the big stocks and we've enhanced the big stocks, such as the big sockeye runs on the Skeena and on the Fraser. It's taken me a while to understand it, but we've ignored all the smaller stocks. They have not been important. The coho stocks are in terrible trouble, especially on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which I know extremely well.

There are a lot of people - and I see some people in the audience here - who work with the Shuswap Nation up the Fraser River. They don't see the salmon coming back that belong up there. They aren't, because they're being overfished in the ocean or it's a non-selective fishery and all of that.

So you're right; when they go fishing, they aren't fishing the fish from one river or one tributary. They're fishing from many. It's this non-selective fishery. There's a lot of talk about different types of fisheries, more selective fishing gear, more terminal fisheries so you know where the fish are going, etc. That kind of thing will make a difference.

It's a very serious issue and one that should be looked at.

Mr. Adams: I do accept the point that COSEWIC or whatever needs very special expertise when it's dealing with these fish that are either completely in the ocean or in freshwater and also in the ocean.

Can I make one more point?

The Chairman: Briefly.

Mr. Adams: Ms Burrows, by the way, I got five points from you rather than four, but perhaps we can discuss that afterwards.

I wonder if you have any ideas on how to operationalize the idea of a management plan at the vulnerable level. Would you go through this legislation, or would you need to do it by some other mechanism?

.2045

Ms Burrows: What I'm recommending and hoping to see in this legislation is the kind of structure, the kinds of steps, and the serious intent you have with recovery plans, to have a similar kind of intent with management plans for vulnerable species. The whole idea is that we're defining problems.

If the problem is urban development in an area where coho are coming back, and it's a particular run of coho.... They live two years in small streams. That's why coho are particularly threatened - not in the official language of the Endangered Species Act, but they are one of the very vulnerable species. They do require either forest streams to live in for two years or a lot of the little coastal streams that have been paved over for parking lots.

If we're starting to see a run of coho that isn't coming back, what you want to do is take a look at the development in the area, or the logging in the area, and see if there's some way you can develop around it. If there isn't, then you make a value judgment and say that the kinetic character of that run of coho is so important that you need to make sure its habitat is maintained - its spawning and water quality and temperature habitat.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Hunter would say you have to be very careful to make the judgment because of this natural variability.

Ms Burrows: Oh, yes.

Mr. Adams: I'm not putting you down. It seems to me he is saying it's not easy to say from one year or two years what is actually happening to the stock.

Ms Burrows: If we look at the Alouette River example, which we looked at earlier, it was down to 10% of its natural flow. This is not -

Ms Husband: It was 2%.

Ms Burrows: That's even worse. Some of these things are so bad that...it's just common sense. That's not a suitable habitat and we lost a lot of pinks as a result of that. Look at the river. Does it have enough water in it? No. Fix it. There's a certain point when it's clear that there isn't enough water.

Mr. Hunter: I would say if you satisfy my concerns on the science and the criteria and the listing, then Ms Burrows's suggestion makes an awful lot of sense to me.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There's a very important message here. A lot of this stuff is really simple. It's not rocket science. It's basic stuff. It's very simple. I'm not sure quite what the problem is sometimes.

There has been an interesting gender imbalance with some of the presentations. It wasMr. Knutson who pointed this out, I'd like to point out.

The Fisheries Council of Canada actually signed on to the task force report, and the task force report saw COSEWIC as the final body for listing. I also wanted to point out, and maybe alleviate some of your concerns, Mr. Hunter, that the current organization of COSEWIC will be maintained in that there are 28 or so scientists who have expertise in different areas, and they will still form those subcommittees. I also agree with you that when you take a look at this additional organizational level that has been added to COSEWIC as per the legislation, there certainly should be adequate expertise coming from the fish sciences sector, because it is such a vitally important industry and ecosystem within Canada.

I wanted to point out something that Ms Burrows said earlier, and that was the point about the problems you had in dealing with a local watershed that was away from you. It wasn't next to you and it wasn't part of your local watershed.

.2050

For me this makes an incredibly strong argument for provincial action because the province can mediate different local concerns. We live, work, and play at the local level. We take action and make significant fundamental changes at the local level. But we also have to mediate different local interests. I live in the province of Ontario and one local interest is being used against another local interest in that province.

It also makes a very strong argument for a federal presence within the field. We can talk about different provincial interests and different regional interests in this country, but unless we have a strong federal presence, those interests will not be mediated within a context of Canadian federalism and what's good for the nation.

I'm just throwing that out for comment. Thank you for that.

Ms Burrows: I really appreciate your saying that you actually understand it, because there's this obsession these days with ``local is best'' and ``local only'' and all of this. It's really hard for people in the fishing community to deal with that. We dragged DFO people to the CORE meetings and I'm really glad we did. People sort of said, oh gee, is there really a federal law that would supersede whatever we're talking about here at the CORE table?

That's the level we have to operate on, so yes, there does have to be very strong federal legislation. Thank you for understanding that.

Ms Husband: The federal government has the authority and the jurisdiction to act in areas of national concern. I would say that these are areas of national concern. Where there's overlap, it's a federal government jurisdiction and you prevail in areas of conflict. So I say to you all, from the legal advice I get, that you can take a lot stronger role than this act shows at this time.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you. Mr. Hunter?

Mr. Hunter: I don't think I can add anything.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I would just add that maybe we should think locally and act globally.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Jennings, please.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mae and Vicki and Mr. Hunter, it's good to hear you today.

I know it's getting late and it's toward the end and we're all tired, but a couple of things bothered me regarding fish stocks when we were talking about the endangered species legislation. My concern comes from a couple of things that don't actually bear any vengeance towards the loggers or fishermen or anything like that.

Basically within our own systems in the municipalities and the way we set up our Greater Vancouver Regional District, for instance, we knew that when the Fergus Creek spill happened, it was directly from a water-main leak. It was chloramine that killed everything living in that creek. I guess I am saying that it's not just those in industry who do it, but it's we ourselves who are not being as conscientious as we should be about what we have in our water.

I have had a number of concerns raised by citizens in my riding regarding creeks and streams. We just talked about paving over creeks and streams. These people are concerned because the development, as it's moving out into the valley, is coming very close to the rivers and streams. Some are salmon-spawning and some perhaps have other valuable life in them.

I'd be interested in your comments as to just what we should be looking at. It's too late to go back now and undo all the damage done, but in the future when we're looking at residential and all types of development, should we be saying, look, you have to be this distance from...? Should we be setting up laws? And they would be local; they wouldn't be federal. These would be local laws, even though the Department of Fisheries and Oceans comes into it. They don't usually come into it unless there is some danger. Could I have your comments on what we should be doing?

Ms Burrows: The federal Fisheries Act often comes into effect only after the damage is done and you can show cause and effect. That's one of the problems with the legislation. There are rules in the federal Fisheries Act, though, that you have to build at least 15 metres away, and if it's a certain size of development it should be 30 metres away.

I think one of the things we should be doing, not just at a municipal level but at least at a provincial level - because the province does have the ability to rule over land - is to have very, very strong riparian buffers around all existing salmon streams. What we see in municipal politics is the developer-becomes-mayor kind of syndrome, time and time again. You can lose so many salmon streams that way. So I think it should be a provincial law and there should be an established understanding of how much you should be away from the riparian area.

On the other hand, there are other laws that can be brought into effect by the municipalities. This is really outside your purview, but in Burnaby there is now a law that says we have some containment around development sites so there's some biological filtration of all of the building material so it doesn't run off and go directly into the Fraser River or into local salmon streams.

.2055

So you're right; it's us. It's the whole development thing. We need more laws at the municipal level. We definitely need provincial laws that at least protect riparian habitat. But we have to think of water quality and temperature as well, and of course that's where volume comes in.

Ms Husband: The province is looking at laws such as that and it has promised to put forth a practices code that would give some minimum protection to riparian areas on private lands and private land logging. About 20% of Vancouver Island is private land, and you have the whole lower mainland here.

So I know they're starting to look at this, but there's a huge development pressure against it and those kinds of things, and they have to give fish a right to water too.

Mr. Hunter: It's well past the point of proof that salmon-rearing streams need some kind of riparian protection. I'm not expert enough to know exactly what it is in any given area, but we're talking of habitat now, not endangered species.

If we had proper habitat protection - which I think is quite consistent with increasing urban development, which we are going to continue to see - we wouldn't be sitting here talking about fish as part of the endangered species landscape. At least in terms of salmon, I would have to argue that.

The Chairman: The central thrust of Ms Jennings's question, though, is, isn't there a responsibility by duly elected municipal councils to protect the habitat? Obviously there is. Therefore to always turn to the province for solutions when the duly elected councils do not deliver is a pretty weak excuse.

It seems to me her question needs to be addressed better.

Ms Burrows: You have to go at it at two levels, and that's where the lobbying has to -

Ms Husband: Three.

Ms Burrows: You have to go municipality by municipality, but there also has to be a provincial standard.

I feel we are at the same place now with urban salmon streams as we were with forest riparian areas about five years ago. We were just starting to talk about riparian areas. Now we're doing that in urban salmon stream situations. There have to be some overriding provincial standards because of the politics.

The Chairman: Are you saying there are no provincial standards?

Ms Burrows: No, there aren't.

Ms Husband: There aren't.

The Chairman: That is an important point.

Ms Burrows: Yes, it's scary.

Mrs. Jennings: On our own property, on our five acres in Wannock, we had to be very careful. We couldn't divert the river at all and we had to make sure we did not cut any trees right there on the shelf of the river. Private land-owners had to watch very carefully, and you were fined if you did something.

Ms Burrows: That's the federal Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Jennings. That was very helpful.

The next one is Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle: One of the things that happens when you're last on the list is your questions get asked before you come to that point.

The Chairman: No, you're not last on the list. There's one left.

Mr. Steckle: My question has been asked by my colleague Mr. Knutson, who prefers to be called Gar, of course. I'm the one who started this first name basis, I am told.

Anyhow, I do appreciate what's been said this afternoon. You've brought an interesting and very worthwhile perspective to this discussion we've had. It's probably been one of the most worthwhile discussions we've had since we began the hearings. You've brought a good dimension to the discussion and I thank you for it.

I will forgo my period of questioning and give it to the chair, who I'm sure has something to ask.

The Chairman: That's very kind of you, Mr. Steckle. I thank you.

Mr. Steckle: I do expect some points for this.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: There are two items for me to tackle. One is an announcement and the other one is a brief sermon from the mountain, which I should refrain from but must give.

The brief announcement has to do with the fact that this committee will resume its hearings in Ottawa next Monday, for reasons too long to explain. I should have said this in the morning, when Mr. Forseth was still here. I apologize for that. Please make a notation that this committee meets in Ottawa next Monday afternoon to proceed with our work.

.2100

Second - and this is an effort of mine and I should resist the temptation, but I cannot - I would conclude with this observation. We badly need context for this legislation in order to make sense of it. If it is dissected into its minute parts, as to what happens southeast of the border or on the other side of the North Pole, and what happened last year to cousin Alfred and Grandma so-and-so in the prairies, and so on, we will be lost.

The context is what happened over the last 500 years. When you start doing that, you see some very troublesome trends. These are the trends that we have to face while we still can, particularly in Canada. In light of the views of Canadians and all those who look at Canada with great admiration, Alberta and British Columbia are the last hope - in addition to Siberia, perhaps, and in addition to some rare parts of Africa and South America. But the last hope for North America, basically, from the point of view of what is left in species, both botanical and zoological, are these two regions.

In eastern Canada we see it already. We have virtually no wolves left. There are no wolverines. The prothonotary warbler is gone. In Newfoundland you have several species that have been listed ad nauseam.

As we move from east to west across Canada, we can see a gradual and very encouraging enrichment of our natural richness. At this point in time, in the 1990s, we have to ask ourselves, when are we ready to move? We have had in Parliament committee hearings and studies on the role of wildlife over the last 20 years coming out of our ears. This is not the first effort. The two task forces I referred to, with the long list of participants and so on, are only the most recent reincarnations, let's say, of efforts of this kind.

So the context has to be the richness that existed 500 years ago and the riches that might be gone in the next 500 years.

This is the trend that is beginning to emerge. Evidently, as a species, we are very dangerous in our behaviour. There is a point in our evolution - evolution, I submit, and we all know it - when we must come to terms with ourselves and with our economic interests for the sake of the long term, because the long term is going to be better protected, including the jobs in logging, if we ensure a certain degree of stability for the wilderness. We know from what has happened in Europe and Africa and other parts of the world that once the wilderness is gone, the valuable forest is also gone. The two are intertwined. It is an inevitable interconnection. We know that through the route of wilderness we actually ensure a viable and long-standing and fairly rich commercial forest. That is where the context comes in.

We might make a little mistake here in not bringing into play the right minister, or perhaps in not phrasing a section of the bill the way it should be. We will make mistakes; it's inevitable. But the fact that we are criticized on the one hand for not doing enough and on the other side for doing too much tells us that somehow we are in the middle of the road and therefore we can proceed with all of the suggestions that have been made, which we will take into account, where we can, in the final phase, in the clause-by-clause study.

What also concerns this committee - and I will conclude with this - are the lessons we have learned over the last five years in fisheries on the east coast. It has been a terrible lesson in terms of the long-term economic impact. There were warnings by scientists in that respect, which the politicians were very slow in picking up. They could have been Conservative, Liberal, or NDP. The slowness of the system is a very distracting factor.

.2105

We want to make sure we can learn from this lesson and move with this legislation, in the hope that, as with other legislation, where it will not have been dead on, on the mark, it will be changed with subsequent revisions, as we are doing now with CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, after eight years.

Legislation is not for eternity; it is an attempt by human beings, who are made of very fragile material and who make mistakes.... Don't expect perfection and infallibility from us. We have not reached that stage yet. Perhaps we might one day, and then we will be secured a special place in the Olympus of politics. Until then, give us a chance to move ahead. Give us the benefit of your advice, but let us not procrastinate, because history is not on our side.

With that profound observation, I thank you for your attention. We'll look forward to tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;