[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 6, 1997
.0853 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Welcome, Mr. Canuel. I'm pleased to see you again.
[English]
Mr. Forseth is in Washington today, so we are proceeding with the committee as it is in this room. We may be joined by a couple more members, but I don't want to keep the witnesses waiting any longer. I apologize for the delay in starting.
We have now reached the point of entering the final stretch with witnesses. We have a session today with the departments. I would like to welcome again Mr. Curtis, who is familiar to us. I will leave it to him to introduce his colleagues or adopt any other procedure. We'll then invite you to make a presentation of ten minutes each so there can be ample time for questions, if that is all right with you.
Mr. Curtis, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Steve Curtis (Executive Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
[English]
It is a pleasure to be back here. I think this is my fourth time sitting at this table.
.0855
I have some brief introductory remarks to make, but before I do so I'd like to allow my colleagues to introduce themselves. As you know, I'm the associate director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada.
Mr. Hiram Beaubier (Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): My name is Hiram Beaubier. I'm the director general of Natural Resources and Environment Branch with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Northern Affairs Program. With me today is Fred McFarland, who's chief of the Biological Resources Division in my branch.
Mr. Michael Porter (Acting Director General, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada): I'm Michael Porter, acting director general, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada.
Dr. William G. Doubleday (Director General, Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I am Bill Doubleday, director general, science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I also have with me today Mr. Gerry Swanson, who's director general of habitat management, environmental sciences.
The Chairman: Is anyone here from Agriculture or Transport? No? All right. This was arranged beforehand, I suppose.
Mr. Curtis, would you like to start?
Mr. Curtis: Merci.
As the committee knows, the bill was designed to do a number of things. First of all, it attempts to establish the national tools and processes, such as the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and COSEWIC, that are needed to ensure effective national coordination for the protection of species at risk.
Bill C-65 also attempts to ensure that the federal government acts responsibly for the protection of species at risk, that the federal house is in order and the federal government is doing everything reasonable to ensure the protection and recovery of some species at risk.
The bill has been designed with a number of key roles for ministers other than the Minister of the Environment. You're aware from your study of the bill that there's a definition of a responsible minister. The responsible minister is the minister who has specific accountabilities for the management of federal species. That includes the minister responsible for national parks, the Minister of Heritage, the minister responsible for fisheries and oceans and of course the Minister of the Environment. So the term ``responsible minister'' comes up on a number of occasions throughout the act.
You also know that the bill establishes a federal-provincial council of ministers to provide general direction to the overall management of endangered species programs across the country, to ensure effective coordination among levels of government and to provide an overview for the activities of COSEWIC. The three responsible ministers are part of that council, as well as ministers from each of the provinces and the two territorial ministers.
Their job, among other things, is to establish some terms of reference and guidelines for the functioning of COSEWIC. Working with COSEWIC, they're also charged with the responsibility of developing the specific criteria needed to assess the status of species - to determine, for example, when a species is endangered, threatened or vulnerable and to clearly define what those criteria are that make a species fall into one or another of those categories. That's a key portion of the operation of this bill.
There are also responsibilities to work cooperatively in the preparation of recovery plans. Clause 34 defines clear roles for responsible ministers in issuing emergency orders, and some mechanisms are specifically identified for cooperation among the three ministers in doing so.
Clauses 38 through 47 address the whole recovery planning and implementation process. The responsible minister has the lead for preparing a recovery program for a listed species falling under his or her jurisdiction. The intent is that they work with other federal departments in the development of such plans and also in the implementation of those plans, but the accountable lead for the preparation of those plans rests with those responsible ministers.
.0900
For example, if a migratory bird occurs on lands managed or administered by Agriculture Canada - for example, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration lands - then the Minister of the Environment would be responsible for taking the lead in developing a recovery plan that would naturally work very closely with the PFRA people and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada people in developing the recovery plan, insofar as it applied to those specific lands, and for ensuring close cooperation with the other players involved in the recovery plan for such a species - that is, provincial players and other ministers.
The bill is designed in such a way that it attempts to utilize the full legislative capacity of the federal government. So it isn't just the act that other ministers will use in bringing to bear measures for the protection of management of species but rather the full authorities they have available to them through other acts of Parliament. So the fisheries minister would be expected to use the powers available to him under the Fisheries Act for the purposes of implementing the protective measures required for listed species under that act, and so on.
With that, I will let the others make their comments and allow you time to ask the questions I know you have.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Who is next?
Mr. Beaubier: I'll volunteer, sir.
First, thank you very much for the opportunity of addressing the committee. As background, I would like to explain to the committee the department's responsibilities in the Yukon and Northwest Territories as well as for aboriginal people as these responsibilities pertain to Bill C-65.
As the committee requested a representative of the northern affairs program participate on this panel, my comments will focus mainly on matters relating to the department's responsibilities in the two territories. In providing this information I hope to demonstrate how my department will be able to cooperate with responsible ministers under Bill C-65 and provide protection to those wildlife species designated as vulnerable, threatened or endangered.
With respect to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, DIAND's northern environmental and resource management legislation covers responsibilities normally accorded to the provinces. We are, therefore, within the federal context, the provincial authority for the management of minerals, oil and gas, lands, and in the Yukon, forests. Through this environmental and resource management legislation, decisions are taken on the allocation of lands for mineral or hydrocarbon exploration and development, the use of water and the deposit of wastes and the cutting of trees in the Yukon. The actions and decisions of our department can therefore have a direct impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
The department is also responsible for the Indian Act, which sets out the relationship between the Crown and the first nations of Canada. Indian reserves are federal lands that the bands have administrative control over and can pass by-laws to effect the management of the land and its resources.
South of 60, most of Canada's land is under provincial jurisdiction. While management boards exist in the north, co-management agreements are also used south of 60. They can be used to resolve a variety of conflicts over resource use and development, and co-management arrangements offer a forum to incorporate the traditional knowledge of aboriginal people into decisions.
It is the policy of the federal government to facilitate such arrangements between first nations and provinces or territories. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other federal departments are supporting several of these initiatives.
The department's major pieces of legislation for the management of land and water are the Territorial Lands Act, the Yukon Waters Act and the Northwest Territories Water Act. These acts were constructed to provide protection to lands and waters for the two territories.
The department can, through the Territorial Lands Act, withdraw lands from disposition for the purposes of national parks, to provide protection to important ecological areas, or to provide protection to certain species.
.0905
An example in the latter case is the Thelon Game Sanctuary, which was created to protect the muskox population of the central Arctic. At the time of the sanctuary's creation, they were considered endangered.
Through the Territorial Lands Act, interim protection is provided to areas that have been identified by Parks Canada as potential national parks.
The department is also responsible for the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the two territories, and in so doing cooperates with other federal departments, territorial governments, and aboriginal groups when reviewing land and water use applications.
The advice received from these federal and territorial departments and aboriginal organizations is used in the decision-making process as to whether a project should proceed and in the establishment of mitigative measures to protect wildlife species or their habitat. For example, conditions that are designed to avoid conflict with or disturbance to wildlife species or their habitat are placed on land use operations.
With the settlement of comprehensive land claims in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, co-management wildlife boards, as well as environmental assessment boards, have been or are in the process of being established. These land claims agreements are constitutionally entrenched, which gives them a status above other legislation where there is a conflict.
The wildlife and environmental assessment institutions are the main instruments for wildlife management and environmental assessment within each of their respective settlement areas. As such, they are the main sources of advice on the management of lands and water, as well as wildlife, for DIAND and other federal and territorial departments with respect to the protection of wildlife in their habitat.
In conclusion, I'd like to make the following observations.
The department's northern resource and environmental legislation can be utilized to complement the implementation of Bill C-65. We would prefer to avoid any real or perceived duplication in the regulation of activities in the two territories.
DOE, working in partnership with DIAND, the territorial governments and the wildlife management boards will be able to effectively deliver this legislation in the two territories.
Some first nations and aboriginal organizations have raised the issue that the bill is an infringement on existing treaty rights and the land claim agreements. The government is obliged to take such rights into account, and the inclusion in Bill C-65 of a non-derogation clause provides the recognition by government of those rights. Furthermore, the special situation of aboriginal peoples has been emphasized in the Sparrow decision, which helped define the nature of the fiduciary responsibilities of government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Beaubier, who is next?
Mr. Porter: I'll volunteer, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a very brief statement.
Canada's national parks are established for the central purpose of maintaining the natural environment. That mandate received further elaboration with the 1988 amendments to the National Parks Act. Specifically, the act directs the maintenance of ecological integrity within national parks. In part, the maintenance of ecological integrity does require the maintenance of species indigenous to a national park.
The assurance of species maintenance can at times depend upon resource management practices outside a national park. Therefore, CESPA, as well as complementary legislation by the provinces and territories, is seen as further supporting the national parks' mandate to maintain species and to recover species at risk.
Since 1986, Parks Canada has been guided by an endangered species directive. Under that directive, national parks recognize all species risk designations that are made by COSEWIC as well as those designations determined by a province or territory. By recognizing those species' status designations, each national park is required to ensure the incorporation of information on species at risk in developing their resourcement management plans.
Therefore, as the prime mandate of national parks is resource protection and the maintenance of ecological integity, endangered species legislation does not impose any onerous new standards. However, CESPA would allow for more effective partnerships in wildlife protection, and we certainly support the legislation.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Porter, does that conclude your remarks?
Mr. Porter: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a further opening statement to make at this appearance. You will recall that I made an opening statement when I appeared before the committee before Christmas.
The Chairman: Would you refresh our memory, please, as to what you said at that time?
.0910
Dr. Doubleday: Essentially, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is supportive of CESPA. We consider that CESPA is complementary to the Fisheries Act and the new Canada Oceans Act in supporting the protection of species at risk.
I also pointed out why it's important to have well-reasoned, appropriate listing criteria for species at risk, taking into account the dynamics of marine ecosystems, Mr. Chairman. I gave some examples of the situations that could arise with the criteria recently adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
The Chairman: Have there been any changes in the legislation that comes under your department since you appeared the last time? Didn't you have some amendments to the Oceans Act and to the Fisheries Act?
Dr. Doubleday: The Fisheries Act is being amended at the present time.
The Chairman: Can you bring the committee up to speed as to what the impact of those changes will be with respect to this legislation?
Dr. Doubleday: Perhaps the most significant changes in the amendments to the Fisheries Act relate to the habitat provision. If you wish to be informed of those -
The Chairman: That is the purpose of this meeting this morning.
Dr. Doubleday: - I would suggest that Mr. Swanson, who is the director general for habitat management and environmental sciences, come to the table.
The Chairman: Please bring him here. Don't you think this would be a natural, elementary item to be addressed, rather than having us request it?
Would you introduce yourself, please, sir?
Mr. Gerald Swanson (Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): My name is Gerald Swanson. I am director general, habitat management and environmental science, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Before the Christmas break, amendments were introduced into the House with respect to the Fisheries Act. It's a very broad rewrite of the Fisheries Act provisions. Those amendments are still being debated in the House.
I believe the amendments that Dr. Doubleday was referring to in particular, with respect to habitat provisions, would be provisions in the bill that would allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to delegate, through agreement, some of the authorities that he has under the act with regard to fish habitat. I believe those would be the most significant provisions that would be related to the bill you are now studying.
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Swanson: To provincial authorities primarily, to provincial ministers.
The Chairman: You are whetting our appetite. What would be the consequences of these delegations that follow us? Out there in the field, where we held hearings, there is still a clear impression that the Fisheries Act will be stronger than the CESPA, and that the public can therefore rely on your department for its protection in relation to endangered species. What will happen as a result of these amendments? This is what this meeting is all about. We have to understand the legislative power of your respective departments.
Mr. Swanson: The Fisheries Act has a number of provisions that I believe complement the bill you are now examining. There are the obvious ones with respect to the determination of quotas and the setting of seasons and gears - those types of traditional things that we hear about when we're managing fisheries. There are other provisions as well that allow the minister to determine sufficient flows to protect fish ova. He can order the construction of fish passageways, or require that screens be built where there are water intakes. There are also the very broad regulatory powers that prohibit the destruction of fish habitat, and provisions relating to the prohibitions on the deposition of deleterious substances in fisheries waters.
.0915
These would be the provisions that would be used by the minister to complement provisions in this bill for where species have been identified as at risk and recovery plans are in order.
The Chairman: The committee needs to hear from you an assessment of the ultimate impact of these amendments. Can you give us your view?
Mr. Swanson: The amendments to the federal Fisheries Act?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Swanson: There are provisions in this bill which would allow the responsible minister to enter into agreements with provincial authorities on recovery plans. There are also provisions in the bill amending the Fisheries Act which would permit the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to delegate the many authorities he has for the protection of fish habitat to provincial authorities. It would seem, although I have not had the opportunity to consult with the minister on this particular issue, there would be definite links between the delegation of fish habitat and perhaps recovery plans. It would seem if there were agreements to enter into agreements with provincial governments on recovery plans for aquatic species it would assist provincial ministers in effecting those recovery plans if they also were able to rely on the authorities of the Fisheries Act.
The Chairman: In the final analysis, then, to help this committee along in understanding what is going to be the ultimate impact, will there be a regime that will be as strong as at present or will it be weaker? We need to have some conclusions from the department.
Mr. Swanson: We have indicated in our analysis of the amendments to the federal Fisheries Act that we are in a situation in many parts of Canada where we do not have resources on the ground and where we have at the moment no mechanisms in place to ensure federal policies on the protection of fish habitat are respected. We believe by entering into agreements with provincial governments we will have in place mechanisms that are built on federal policies on fisheries resources. Those policies then would complement the provisions of this bill for the establishment and administration of recovery plans.
The Chairman: You're aware, I'm sure, that in certain provinces the capacity in the field, as you call it, on the part of the provinces, because of lay-offs and cutbacks, is going to be diminished considerably, as it has been in the federal case. What then will be the net effect? We need some information.
Mr. Swanson: Mr. Chairman, we are also subject to cutbacks within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I hesitate to use precise percentage figures, but the cutbacks are significant. In this kind of era in which all governments are subject to these kinds of restraints we feel the pooling of resources is a more effective way of delivering on our program requirements.
The Chairman: That is not the point. We have to pool our resources. The question is whether resources will be adequate once they are pooled.
Mr. Swanson: Well, the level of resourcing... If we had our druthers, we would all love to have more resources. We are determining ways to operate effectively with the resources that are assigned to the department.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, you're not getting the substance. But I don't want to start question period now.
.0920
I was just hoping you would amplify your presentation for the benefit of the committee. It's a great pity that you were not able to submit a brief with your analysis of the amendments. It is not a very satisfactory way of treating the subject, because the Fisheries Act is pivotal for the effectiveness of CESPA, as you know. We are moving in a very unclear environment and we don't know what exactly is going to happen, and your assessment would be extremely helpful. Anyway, it's not for me to pursue these questions at this point.
Are there any further interventions you would like to make? It is not a very satisfactory presentation, I must say.
We'll start with questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel, please.
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): I may be wrong, but I notice that this is very complex in the sense that there are many captains on the same ship; when there are many captains, it is difficult to determine responsibilities. There is Agriculture, Environment, Fisheries, etc., and I would even say that Forestry has something to say about this. In addition to all the federal departments concerned, there are the ministries of each of the provinces, which does not make the task any easier for the captains of this ship.
Everyone agrees that we must protect species in the environment. Given that, I have a question for you.
Shouldn't we give full responsibility for environmental matters to the provinces? If you don't agree with that, how could we at least simplify federal-provincial agreements on the environment?
[English]
Mr. Curtis: You're quite right in describing the situation as complex.
On the first point, most pieces of legislation that apply to the federal government involve the activities and responsibilities of a large number of other ministers. I'm speaking of environmental legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There is administrative responsibility vested with the Minister of the Environment and there are specific roles and accountabilities of all other ministers of the Crown. That's part of the package; that's what is built into it. It's designed that way so that everyone is acting responsibly. I don't see the fact that there's more than one role here as necessarily a weakness or a serious problem.
With respect to your question about the provinces, I don't particularly want to engage in all of that debate, but there is a requirement to manage activities on federal lands and for federal species. The intent is to work cooperatively with provinces as well, and the act has been designed with that in mind. It's taken in combination with the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada, which was negotiated in Charlottetown on October 2. The whole approach is predicated on working in a complementary fashion with provinces and that provinces will meet their responsibilities for their own lands. That's Canada.
.0925
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: From time to time, officials or engineers tell us that such and such a species is in peril or that we have to cut quotas. Private sector engineers arrive with other studies and come to completely different conclusions concerning the same species which, in your opinion, should be protected. I'm a layman in the area of fisheries and I tend to think that the department must be right. However, after a few years here, I realize that that's not always true and that in the case of certain species, errors have been made.
After ten years of expertise, can you tell us whether you are proud of your studies and if so, how is it that they are almost mistaken in certain cases?
Mr. Doubleday: There is always a degree of uncertainty in the projections regarding wildlife species, especially among fish and marine mammals, and we never state that our projections are very precise. We take this uncertainty into account in our conservation system. We take precautions to ensure that the populations of wild species continue despite exploitation.
The determination of the endangered and vulnerable species comes from COSEPAC, which examines the analyses of various experts, not just departmental experts.
In most cases, we have not reversed decisions even after having received more recent information at a later date. I can assure you that we do our best with what is available.
We do realize that uncertainty exists in the conservation of resources.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Canuel.
[English]
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the panel a general question.
When I first got elected in 1993 one of the words floating around Ottawa was ``disentanglement''. I think it came out of a sense of frustration that when too many fingers are in the pie or too many cooks in the... I can use hundreds of metaphors, but the bottom line is that at the end of the day we hook too many people in, and there is a real sense of frustration in the general public that we can't call anyone to account. You get a complex piece of legislation, or a complex piece of legislation that's part of a complex set of relationships we're delegating to the provinces by agreements, or we're hooking in various ministries. At the end of the day no one really stands up and says ``I'm in charge; I'm the person responsible.''
That principle of disentanglement doesn't seem to be at play in this case. I wondered if I could get your reaction to that.
Mr. Beaubier: I'll respond in the context of the north.
.0930
Our minister is responsible, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, for the land and environment from the federal perspective and the quasi-provincial perspective in the north.
Our role in this legislation is supportive; we wouldn't see it as competitive. It would be up to the agencies that have responsibilities for wildlife and endangered species to make declarations on the risks of those species, to develop plans and strategies for responding to that risk. If that involved the withdrawal of land or special designation of land, that would then flow to our minister under his legislation to so designate. But it would be supportive of, as opposed to lead in or competitive with.
Mr. Knutson: Let me use an example. We received testimony from Shirley Adamson. She was quite emphatic that the group hadn't been consulted, and they used consultation as defined under their treaty. As a parliamentarian, I wasn't sure who was responsible to consult with them - was it DIAND, or was it Environment Canada? She was quite pointed in her remarks that she wasn't supporting the legislation because they hadn't been consulted.
Mr. Beaubier: The land claims agreements that have been struck in the north are agreements that apply to all institutions of the federal government.
Mr. Knutson: Right.
Mr. Beaubier: Our minister has had a lead in the formulation of those agreements. They are confirmed by cabinet and endorsed by Parliament. The obligations then fall back to a particular ministry to make sure that its business is conducted in a way that supports and enhances those treaties and agreements. So in this instance it's very clear that the sponsoring minister who is putting forward a bit of legislation, a policy change, has that accountability.
Mr. Knutson: If I could just change the subject for a second, one of the common criticisms of the bill was that it didn't go far enough to protect the critical habitat. We had recommended amendments to the bill, suggesting that we put in the term ``critical habitat'', that it would be protected.
Perhaps we could start with Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I presume you knew or would know that was coming, that critical habitat would be one of the areas of contention. I wonder why there was the reluctance to put it in the bill.
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, I can't respond about reluctance to put it in the bill. All I can say is from our perspective we see the Fisheries Act as being complementary to the Endangered Species Protection Act, and the provisions of the Fisheries Act apply more generally to the habitat of fish and other product species. So we consider that we have powers that can be used for that purpose, to protect threatened and endangered species.
Mr. Knutson: So you don't know why there was a reluctance to put it in the act. Is that what you're saying? You can't comment, or you don't know?
Dr. Doubleday: We're not the lead department with respect to this legislation.
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Knutson, in fact you've been studying this bill at some length. There are provisions in the bill for addressing critical habitat. The term is defined, and COSEWIC is required to identify where that critical habitat exists. There's not just an expectation but a requirement for recovery plans to address critical habitat where COSEWIC has designated it.
It's true that critical habitat hasn't been included as a part of the prohibition section, the prohibitions that kick in on the listing of the species.
Mr. Knutson: Why is that?
Mr. Curtis: Well, you've been hearing from lots of different people on this bill since the outset of the discussion. You will, I'm sure, remember as recently as Tuesday in this very room you heard from the agriculture people who were particularly concerned about potential impacts of this legislation on their activities. That's based on the current formulation of the prohibition section dealing with activities directly detrimental to species themselves.
.0935
If critical habitat were part of that, I think you would see considerably more of an outcry there. Through a recovery plan you have the opportunity to engage all those players who are affected and responsible to come up with a sound decision on what action to take that involves all the stakeholders and makes ministers specifically accountable for the decisions they take and the actions they support. That's the specific design of the bill.
Mr. Knutson: In a general sense, the evidence around this issue can be summarized as saying that on one hand we have prohibited destruction of residence, but we haven't prohibited the destruction of critical habitat in the prohibition section. They're saying that depending on the individual species you're looking at, a distinction of residence may be nonsensical. While I listened carefully to the evidence of the farm groups, they seemed to be more concerned about clause 60, which I think is misguided on their part.
My main point is to understand that lots of animals don't have residences, but they have critical habitat. I wonder whether it would make more sense to protect critical habitat.
Mr. Curtis: That, of course, is ultimately the decision of this committee. I'm giving you the rationale behind the formulation that's in Bill C-65 now.
Mr. Knutson: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I feel it was more a political consideration. We would have whipped up too much resistance to the bill if we had included prohibition on destroying critical habitat. Is that what you're intending to say? That's what I think I've heard you imply.
Mr. Curtis: Bill C-65, as it exists now, obviously reflects a great deal of debate and discussion. This bill has been to cabinet on three separate occasions in the last year for discussion of one feature or another. So yes, there are lots of trade-offs involved, as there are in any piece of legislation. It's the art of the possible, isn't it?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here.
Mr. Knutson: I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'm just trying to understand a reluctance to -
Mr. Curtis: Of course there are political considerations.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis, we are just trying to convey to you the desirability to be candid and speak up before this committee.
Mr. Knutson: The one consistent criticism of the bill we heard from an environmental perspective was that it didn't make a lot of sense not to protect critical habitat prior to the fact. Recovery plans come in after the fact. I accept your comments, and I'm not really looking for any... I don't know what the answer is. I genuinely don't know why there's reluctance.
Mr. Curtis: The basic response tool that Bill C-65 offers to the listing of a species is the recovery plan. The recovery plan is supposed to be an inclusive process where you determine the actions that are required to deal with and address the problems that have been identified.
The prohibitions there are almost more interim protective measures than anything else. They are there so that once the species is listed something immediately kicks in to prevent it from being killed, harmed, or harassed - the most egregious and obvious problems.
.0940
You could debate whether or not that should also include protection of their critical habitat, but as you know, that's a more complex matter. When COSEWIC identifies a species it doesn't look at every piece of land across Canada to determine where the species lives. It looks more broadly and determines that species X is in trouble because of habitat problems of either loss of habitat or deterioration in the quality of habitat. It makes some determinations of the kinds of habitat the species requires, but it doesn't come out with a map and identify, lot by lot and hectare by hectare, where these things live. The details of how you actually protect something on the ground come down to determining where they really are, and it's at the recovery planning process that you get into that kind of detail. COSEWIC couldn't function at that level of detail.
So I argue again that the recovery plan is the tool that needs to be used to provide the strongest protective measures. There are regulations that would flow from a recovery plan, and of course once those regulations are in place they would have to be respected. That's the model.
Mr. Knutson: The sense I got from the witnesses was that because so much of the power of the bill was discretionary, based on words like ``may implement regulations'', actions might not necessarily follow in law. There was no legal requirement, even if a species were listed and everybody understood it was endangered. You still might not have protection of critical habitat and the species might go on to become extinct, not due to anything illegal but simply through the destruction of critical habitat.
Mr. Curtis: I'm not really interested in getting into a debate on this, but most legislation in this country -
The Chairman: Excuse me for interjecting. It's not a question of debating. Mr. Knutson is trying to understand - and it intrigues all of us - why the legislation is phrased using a permissive phraseology rather than a mandatory phraseology. Why is it most frequently ``may'' rather than ``shall''? How did you arrive at the decision to draft the bill in that manner?
Mr. Curtis: I guess it mostly depends on your perspective. We've certainly heard from a lot of people that there are too many ``musts'' and too many proscriptive approaches built into the architecture of the bill.
As I was starting to say, most legislation in Canada relies on the capacity to develop regulations, and ministers are responsible and accountable for those decisions in a public and open sort of way. I think it's inappropriate to assume they're never going to take the right action. There are all sorts of measures in this act that require detailed reporting in a public registry and accountability. There are major political risks in failing to take action and the bill is designed in that sort of way. But I don't design the way legislation is put together in this country. Most legislation relies on ``mays'' and the capacity to put regulations in place. Where there's a regulatory authority it's seldom a ``must''.
Mr. Knutson: I'm really not interested in having a debate either. All I'm trying to do, in a general way, is pass on the concerns from a particular point of view and flesh them out. Next week I, as a parliamentarian, have to make decisions on what amendments I may or may not propose. I don't have any particular motivation other than to try to get a broader understanding of the history of why certain words are used and other words aren't.
On this last point, though, I think the perspective of environmental groups is that the bill is designed to deal with when we're in crisis. It's not like regulating the financial capital markets, where the main issue might be efficiency and a whole bunch of other things. This is a bill that's designed after a whole bunch of failures. So coming from an attitude that this is the end of the road for the animal, or animals, they felt it might be a little punchier, in that some of those ``mays'' should have been ``shalls''.
.0945
I'll now turn from a macro issue, Mr. Porter, since you're here, to a micro issue. We've had some testimony that the grizzly bears weren't in very good shape in Banff National Park. For example, female bears won't cut across the Trans-Canada Highway, and as development continues in the park we'll lose that population of grizzly bears.
I wonder if there's anything you can say that might make me a bit more optimistic about grizzly bears.
Mr. Porter: I hope so. You may be aware, because of your travels in the west, of the conclusion of the Bow Valley study. This was a two-year study with a very high-level panel involved and lots of public input. It made about 500 recommendations, including a number that my minister undertook to implement immediately, specifically directed towards wildlife corridors for large carnivores and ungulates. There were fairly tough decisions relative to removing an airstrip, cadet camp, bison paddock, horse corrals and things like that to renew a corridor for those animals.
We do have a great concern about the grizzly in particular. We have for a number of years been engaged in some cutting-edge research relative to understanding what the problem is. We have two major studies going on, centred on Banff at this point, the east slope and west slope grizzly research projects. We're working with the provinces, some universities and some volunteer groups, using new DNA technology to determine the genetics of the various bears within that area so that we know what management units we're going to have to ultimately deal with.
This extends far beyond the park. In fact, the two studies cover an area of about 60,000 square kilometres. It's consistent with the direction we received through amendments to the act in 1988 for the maintenance of ecological integrity and for policy changes we tabled in Parliament about two years ago relative to working beyond our boundaries, using what we call ecosystem-based management, simply recognizing that we can't control everything from within the park.
The boundaries of Banff, and in fact the four contiguous mountain parks there, simply aren't large enough to sustain on their own a viable population of grizzly. We have to work with others outside. In that context, CESPA, had it been in place right now, would have been extremely useful in getting us a little more advanced than we are now.
Mr. Knutson: Even though it doesn't apply to the provinces in terms of grizzly bears.
Mr. Porter: It has the potential for partnerships and complementary legislation.
Mr. Knutson: Right.
Mr. Porter: To my mind, in spite of the fact that there are processes in CESPA that require us to do different kinds of planning -
Mr. Knutson: Cooperatively.
Mr. Porter: - yes, cooperatively - the end result is less process. We have clear direction. We don't get at the front end negotiating who does what and who pays for what. We have our marching orders, so we just get to it.
Mr. Knutson: Let's say I'm unhappy with the rate of development going on in Banff National Park and as a private citizen I think the level of development is going to spell doom for the grizzly bears there - although, granted, they wander out. Is there a point where I can use this act to force the stoppage of development because of the critical habitat issue? For instance, if we destroy the critical habitat, we're going to destroy the bear. If we put too many roads through, the bears won't like the roads and won't cross the highways.
Does anybody see a mechanism is this bill for me to force the government to do something that perhaps it doesn't want to do?
Mr. Porter: In the sense that if we were required to undertake a recovery plan - and I'd ask Steve to elaborate further, since he's most familiar with it - the bill does have provisions for the public or individuals to address those actions.
.0950
I think the broad authorities under the National Parks Act itself were probably an avenue as well. We do have - and the chairman will know this very well because he sponsored these amendments in 1988 - fairly inclusive direction under that act to maintain ecological integrity within the national parks. That is an all-inclusive direction that deals with soils, waters, the whole biophysical context of the park, including wildlife. So that would enter into it that way, frankly.
Perhaps Steve has an addition to that.
Mr. Curtis: I think that's a fairly good summary. Should the grizzly bear become listed by COSEWIC, with the population that occurs in Banff, it would certainly alter the way the parks looked at their management of the park. I think Michael has already covered that.
Mr. Knutson: I must be out of time by now. I'll pass and come back on a second round.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I ask the presenters this morning if they could provide us with copies of their briefs. It will be very useful to have them in front of us so that we can read them as we deliberate on the amendments next week.
I want to go back to the Fisheries Act and some of the delegation of responsibilities to the provinces in that wider process. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still trying to understand exactly what's going on here. It's my understanding that enforcement and monitoring are going to be delegated to the province, and I'm wondering what else is being delegated to the province. I want to understand how, in the process of negotiating with the province, we will be able to maintain enough control for the federal house to be able to manage habitat, particularly under the provisions of CESPA.
Mr. Swanson: Perhaps I could attempt to address your question.
The federal government has had arrangements with many of the provincial governments regarding the management of the fishery for many years. In the case of the prairie provinces these arrangements go back to the 1930s. In the case of Ontario and Quebec the arrangements go back even further than that. In coastal areas where the fish depend on both the marine and freshwater environment for their habitat, the federal government continues to be actively involved in the management of the fishery.
As these arrangements were entered into with provincial governments, all enforcement of Fisheries Act provisions went with those arrangements. I might add that because many of the arrangements date back many years, the actual formal documents that indicate the exactness of the arrangements are difficult to track. But the facts of the matter are that in the province of Ontario, for example, all enforcement of Fisheries Act issues rests with the Province of Ontario under a long-standing arrangement we've had with them.
In the mid-1970s changes were made to the Fisheries Act that strengthened the provisions with regard to fish habitat. This was at about the time the fisheries department was set up as a separate entity from the environment department. We proceeded through the 1980s on the assumption that these strengthened provisions were still in the realm of provincial competence. That position or impression began to change during the late 1980s, when a number of court cases were brought on the question of the environmental assessment issues - the former EARP guidelines order, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
.0955
In one of those cases, it became clear that the authority to authorize the destruction or disturbance of fish habitat was an authority that could only be exercised by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or his officials. That was the case in spite of long-standing arrangements that we had with many of the provincial governments, where the provincial government in fact administered all the provisions of the Fisheries Act. Because of those arrangements, the federal department really did not have the troops, the people on the ground, to enforce the Fisheries Act.
Given that situation, we started to look at what kinds of administrative or legal arrangements we could examine to rectify this situation. As a result, a bill was introduced into Parliament before Christmas to amend the Fisheries Act. It contained provisions that would allow the federal government to delegate to provincial governments some of these authorities that they do not currently have.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This triggers under CEAA, is that correct, or is it something else?
Mr. Swanson: No, you're correct. One of the authorities we're looking at is now currently referred to as subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Should it become law, under this bill it will be possible to delegate some of the authorities under 35(2) to provincial governments.
There is also another provision in the bill, however, that will necessitate that certain projects require a mandatory federal permit. That's not a provision that currently exists. There are no requirements in the current Fisheries Act to obtain a permit from the federal government in advance of a project that could destroy fish habitat. So that is one provision that in effect provides an additional involvement of the federal government above what we see now.
For other projects, where it's possible for us to enter into agreements to delegate with provincial governments, we envisage entering into agreements that would require the provincial governments to exercise the authorities they have been delegated in accordance with policies and procedures that have been approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
This bill also provides for the authority to enter into agreements. With respect to this bill, while there have been no discussions that I have been involved in with any of the provincial governments on agreements, the provisions of the Fisheries Act certainly would assist in the operation of recovery plans should they be delegated to provincial governments under the Fisheries Act if such agreements are entered into.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, I don't understand that. You're talking about authorities that are being delegated to the provinces. They would assist in the development of recovery plans, and we've lost this power?
.1000
Mr. Swanson: There are two provisions in this bill that I think come into play. One is the authority of the responsible minister to enter into agreements with provincial authorities. The second provision indicates that a responsible minister can use whatever authorities he has under other pieces of legislation to advance the principles or the provisions of this bill. It seems to me that there could be some links between those provisions, should we have delegated them to provincial governments under the Fisheries Act.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You'll have to forgive me if I'm a little bit confused on this one. It seems to me that when you give something away, you have less control over it, and I'm not so sure why this would strengthen CESPA.
Mr. Swanson: As I've indicated, I haven't participated and I'm not aware of any proposals to delegate or to enter into agreements with provincial governments. I'm simply saying that should such agreements be entered into - if we in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had entered into agreements with a provincial government with respect to powers under the Fisheries Act - those powers would then be available to a provincial minister, should they be of assistance in advancing recovery plans or other matters under CESPA.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.
The Chairman: The emphasis being on ``should be available''. Whether there is the political will is then the question, is it?
Mr. Swanson: I'm sorry - should we enter into agreements with provincial governments?
The Chairman: No. Those powers that had been delegated should be available to the provincial jurisdiction - and the question is, provided that there is the political will to implement them, to use them. It is a wide-open question, isn't it?
Mr. Swanson: The proposals that we have do provide for these kinds of accountabilities in terms of review of the agreements from time to time following federal policies. Our effectiveness of course will be determined as in the proof of the pudding, as we move along. The mechanisms will be put in place to be able to address the kinds of concerns you are raising.
The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Kraft Sloan, is that all?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: Madam Payne.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Swanson and Mr. Doubleday, with the amendments being made to the Fisheries Act that you have mentioned, in your opinion do you feel that there are still any voids in the present CESPA bill, or duplications?
Dr. Doubleday: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a difficult question to answer. As I've indicated before, we consider that the Fisheries Act and CESPA are complementary for aquatic species. They're not identical. There are powers in the Fisheries Act that are not in CESPA, and there powers in CESPA that are not in the Fisheries Act.
Mrs. Payne: I'm aware of that, yes.
Dr. Doubleday: So I suppose you could say that there's a gap in one or the other from that perspective, but we've never thought of it that way.
Mrs. Payne: I suppose that my question really is, are both acts together complementary and wide-ranging enough to do the job that needs to be done, insofar as the Department of Fisheries is concerned? I'm thinking primarily in terms of protection of endangered species and the habitat.
Dr. Doubleday: I understand that. The two pieces of legislation together provide a very powerful collection of authorities and powers for responsible ministers. Whether those can be effectively applied in all situations is another question.
If I look at some of the species that have been identified as endangered or threatened - there are a few that occur occasionally in the Great Lakes, for example - whether you could stop an individual from being killed inadvertently as a result of some other activity through the exercise of these powers, I rather doubt. I think they'd be effective at curbing deliberately planned activities that would affect the fish or their habitat. But I doubt that any legislative framework can give 100% protection.
.1005
Mrs. Payne: Is there any provision in the Fisheries Act that would allow a citizen to trigger or make a complaint if they felt the government wasn't doing what should be done, either within the act or not?
Dr. Doubleday: I can't reply with absolute certainty, but I do not believe so.
Mrs. Payne: I'm sure you know the concern I have on it, and it relates certainly to the east coast fishery and the position we see ourselves in right now with the cod fishery - you know, we lay blame everywhere, and as you stated earlier, nobody wants to take the blame, because I suppose blame can be laid in many places.
One of the things that happened in the early 1980s - and I was looking at a video that your department provided for the FRCC at the time they were doing the studies - was that a number of complaints were made to the department about the decline in the cod fishery, and in fact the scientists indicated to the federal government that the stocks were declining, and at the same time we were seeing an increase in quotas. It was just a terrible situation. While stocks were declining rapidly, we were increasing our quotas.
We now are seeing a situation where the food chain is being interrupted. We are looking at a shortage of capelin fishery. Even though we are getting reports that there are lots of stocks of capelin around, we are getting conflicting reports from those who are doing the harvesting that in fact that's not the case. We are also seeing the same thing with squid - although squid is a cyclical fish, as is capelin, I suppose. We are seeing declines in squid in certain areas.
The reason I'm concerned about whether or not government can be forced to act on a recommendation of given parties is because in many cases government is reluctant to take the necessary action, for whatever reason. I'm wondering if there is any provision - or can there be any provision - to protect certain species or the habitat.
Dr. Doubleday: That's a fairly wide-ranging statement and question. First of all, I'd like to point out that quotas for cod in particular declined pretty systematically from about 1988 onwards.
Mrs. Payne: That's right, but the stocks were declining long before that.
Dr. Doubleday: I don't think that's so clear.
The capelin fishery has been carried out with a very low exploitation rate for at least the last six or seven years. The exploitation rate is just a few percent, so the fishery is not a significant factor in the fluctuations of capelin abundance at this time. Historically, the capelin fishery was much larger - several hundred thousand tonnes. But in the last five years, for example, it hasn't gone over 50,000 tonnes. It's set at quite a low level.
With respect to the recourse that citizens have if they feel the government is not adequately protecting the fish resources, they can certainly complain. They can complain to the minister. Every ministerial letter is responded to - carefully considered. But there's no provision... Well, there is, I suppose. I'm not a lawyer. I have seen one or two instances where something called ``mandamus'' is used, whereby it is claimed that a minister has not carried out his mandated responsibility. I think this applies generally to all acts, not just to the Fisheries Act. We have had one or two lawsuits on the principle of mandamus, which I expect some members of the committee know a lot more about than I do.
.1010
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that is not really sufficient to do what I think has to be done. I don't think many people from the general public are going to resort to that without having a provision within the act that in fact is well known to unions or other fisheries associations. However, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it at that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Payne. Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I will continue to pursue the line of questioning my colleague, Mrs. Payne, has addressed.
This bill can be - and probably will be - a very controversial piece of legislation, seen differently by different people. For the moment I want to take us into our past, perhaps prior to 1988, which Madam Payne has referred to. The experience we've had in fisheries is one that has left us all with a desire to do better in the future. First of all, a species was allowed to get to a point where drastic measures had to be taken. As a result of those drastic measures being taken, there has been a dramatic impact on the federal treasury.
We cannot go through many of those experiences. In fact there may never be another issue we'll have to address with the kinds of finances we've had to inject into this industry. There probably isn't another recovery plan we could undertake that would ever cost that amount of money.
My questioning goes along with the view that if science was doing its job and if there was reliance on scientific knowledge to deal with that issue, if all of that was done, was science wrong? If it wasn't done, why have that scientific knowledge available if we don't adhere to it? Was it a failure of politicians to deal with the realities? Was it an industry-driven issue that was stronger than the politicians of the day? What caused us to get into that dilemma in the first place?
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple issue, as I'm sure you all appreciate. The last time I appeared before the committee I made reference to the Harris panel, which was a group of eminent experts who reviewed the scientific information on the northern cod fishery in 1989 and 1990. Those are the years they worked in. I've provided a copy of that report to the committee.
Essentially, the scientific assessment of northern cod changed dramatically in 1989, when research vessel surveys were first used to base the abundance estimates, instead of the catch rates of commercial vessels. We were not able to use research vessel surveys in the early 1980s because we had to build up a series before we could use it. It was only in -
Mr. Steckle: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
When you talk about building up a series, what are you talking about?
Dr. Doubleday: We carry out an annual survey over the area where the northern cod is found, from Hamilton Inlet to about halfway down the Grand Banks. We take about 400 samples with a bottom trawl to estimate the abundance and composition of the fish, particularly cod, but other species as well.
.1015
I believe we first had complete coverage of that area in 1980, so it took a while to build up a series that we could use to calibrate abundance estimates. It was only 1988 when we realized that the survey was incompatible with the commercial catch rates. We weren't able to come to a firm conclusion in 1988, so it was early 1989 when the scientists decided that the research survey was the reliable indicator.
This caused quite a substantial downward change in the abundance estimates. That didn't mean the stock was collapsing at that point; it simply meant that the stock had stopped increasing and was smaller than previously thought. And the exploitation rate was higher than planned. It was around 40% instead of 20%.
The Harris panel reviewed all of that and accepted it as being the best interpretation of the situation. The Harris panel recommended that the harvest rate be reduced over a period of years to the target harvest rate. The government adopted a plan of gradually reducing quotas to move in that direction.
Then subsequently, the trawl survey began to decline abruptly. In 1991, 1992 and 1993 our survey index declined very rapidly. This was not foreseen. There were also rapid declines in the commercial fishery at the same time that were not foreseen. When these were observed, very drastic measures were taken. First, in February 1992 the offshore fishery was closed, and then around July 1 the entire fishery was closed.
I should point out that the research vessel survey continued to decline after the fishery was closed. So there's reason to believe that the mortality was not entirely due to fishing, although fishing is obviously a big factor in the decline.
If you go back to the late 1980s, the scientific estimates changed, but it wasn't a dramatic change. Then in the early 1990s all indications were that the stock started declining very rapidly, and that's when dramatic action was taken.
Scientific estimates are never perfect, but they were subject to a very extensive independent second look in 1989 that said it was the best they could do with the information they had. It was only about two years later, around late 1991 or 1992, when the industries started to decline rapidly. At that point very drastic action was taken.
Now I suppose part of your question is - -
The Chairman: Might I intervene for a moment, Mr. Steckle, to corroborate in addition to what Mr. Doubleday said, which is very important in my view.
According to Statistics Canada figures, in the 1970s the yearly catch averaged some650,000 metric tonnes throughout the whole decade. In the 1980s the catch dropped to around 250,000 metric tonnes. So you can see already, between the seventies and the eighties, quite a considerable drop until we reach the time of the studies by Dr. Harris at Memorial University.
.1020
You have to see this over a longer period of time, over a longer period of harvesting, than just as a method that began to emerge as a problem in the late eighties. The problem is in the heavy catches of the seventies, when it was at a level that was triple the catch of the eighties.
Please proceed.
Dr. Doubleday: Yes, the chairman is quite right. There's a longer history for the northern cod fishery. Actually, the peak catch, I believe, was in 1968, just a little bit earlier. At that point most of the fishing was by foreign fleets. The stock and the catches declined quite rapidly. It reached a low point in 1976, at which point a very restrictive quota regime was put in place. There was a gradual increase from about 1978 to 1983, levelling off during the 1980s at something like a third of the peak of the 1960s.
I should also point out that cod stocks in general were very productive during the 1960s. There were very large catches west of Greenland at that time as well, in the order of 300,000 tonnes per year. The stocks were also very strong in other northern areas, such as Iceland and Norway. There's reason to believe that cod was generally more productive during the 1960s than it has been subsequently and that this is linked to changes in the North Atlantic ocean climate.
Nevertheless, there was a very substantial decline to northern cod and these other main stock, associated with heavy fishing pressure from the 1960s onwards, with a reversal at the time of extension of fisheries jurisdiction in 1977. After an initial recovery, northern cod levelled off in the 1980s and subsequently declined again.
Mr. Steckle: I guess the reason for my question was that I would hope we could learn something from that experience, that the applied science, given that it's realistic, can be applied in such a way as we don't find ourselves... We can never recover a lost species. It would be my hope that the legislation we're about to introduce - and we are going to work on that next week again - would reflect that scientific-based knowledge along with traditional and local-based knowledge.
I guess the question I really was asking - perhaps you didn't get that part of it from the way I asked my question - is how much local-based knowledge was used in the determination? Was there general agreement between the scientific knowledge and local-based knowledge in terms of the stocks and that type of thing?
I would also like Mr. Swanson to address this question, the anomaly we have in terms of the federal government being involved in giving the powers of fisheries to the provinces. In the Great Lakes, for instance, we have a situation where the province controls the stocks of fish in the Great Lakes but the predators are the responsibility of the federal government. Now, how can we manage a stock when we have one government controlling the stock and supply of the species we want to protect and the predator is controlled by someone else? What if there's disagreement as to how that should be done in the case of the lamprey eel, for instance?
The greatest success story Fisheries and Oceans has ever had to tell is the lamprey eel control program. Yet if it hadn't been for the federal government's intervention there we probably would not have the stocks we do. It wasn't because the province had managed well; it was because we were able to control the predators.
How do we deal with legislation where we have these kinds of controls in different areas and where basically these two may have divergent views and we may find ourselves going in opposite directions at the same time?
The Chairman: A brief answer, please.
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first question, what happened to the Atlantic groundfish was a tremendous shock to the fishery and to those who tried to manage and conserve the fish stocks. A number of lessons were learned. One was that fish stocks are less resilient than had been thought, and this resulted in a change of policy from erring on the side of the fishermen when they needed more fish to erring on the side of the fish. It's a precautionary approach.
.1025
Local knowledge was not as well incorporated into the conservation regime as it could have been. We've taken a number of initiatives in the 1990s to involve fishers in both the assessment of stocks and the development of the conservation harvesting plans. We think this is a major step forward.
There are other things I could mention as well, but basically it was previously thought that species like cod were very robust. In other parts of the world, such as the North Sea, they had sustained harvest rates that were twice as high as those in Canada for many decades. But we learned that our cod resources, at least, can be fragile under some circumstances.
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Swanson: Yes, sir.
I believe you've been more intimately involved in the sea lamprey question over the last few months than I have, but I think it is an issue that represents the complex interactions that occur between jurisdictions, and indeed different departments, within the federal system. Many of the exotic species we are talking about in the Great Lakes are introduced via ballast water that comes in through shipping. This, of course, brings in the Minister of Transport and others. The construction of canals had much to do with the transport of exotic species into the upper Great Lakes. Even in the fishery itself, the fishery now is being directed at many species that one would consider to be exotic species in the Great Lakes, namely Pacific salmon.
So these are obviously areas where different levels of government must work together. And as you know, there are continuing discussions going on with respect to the sea lamprey control program.
The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, if you are interested in the history of natural resources exploitation, an excellent paper was written by Professor Ludwig at UBC. It is actually a short monograph. If you are interested in it, I would be glad to secure a copy for you. It's makes for horrific midnight reading.
Mr. Steckle: I know that the chairman is given to and disposed to reading at night, but I usually find myself wanting to sleep at night. I guess that's why he's so well briefed on these many issues.
I did hope to bring to the table this morning the approach that we have learned some lessons from our past. Given the political climate between the provincial and federal governments, and given this current legislation, we're hoping to have the provinces mirror legislation that reflects what we're doing here if we can find that cooperation. If we don't find that cooperation, we are and could further be in some serious trouble.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
Let's now bring this round of questions to a conclusion, and then we'll have two other brief in camera consultations among the committee.
Madam Payne has a question, and then I have a question as well. Would you like to proceed with yours?
Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to go back again to protecting the habitat. We know that gear technology played a major role in the destruction of the stocks. I think you briefly touched on gear class. We all know the destruction that took place as a result of some types of gear technology - draggers, auto-trawling, that sort of thing. We've heard horror stories over the years about the great hauls of fish that were coming up, and about how the large cod were kept while the small ones were thrown away. What we were basically doing was destroying the mature fish so that the reproduction cycle was in fact interfered with rather drastically.
I'm now wondering whether or not there's any intention on the part of the department to take a serious look at the kinds of technology that will be used in the future. Is there any intention to preserve the breeding and spawning grounds that are so important to the reproduction process of the northern cod.
.1030
The Chairman: This goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-65. Nevertheless, could you please provide an answer?
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are very much interested in ensuring that fishing gear is selective and doesn't unnecessarily kill non-target species or kill small individuals of target species. I could point, for example, to the Nordmore grate, which is a plastic grid that's put in front of shrimp trawls that prevents small cod and other species from being caught with the shrimp. There can be situations where very large numbers of tiny young-of-the-year cod, redfish, and other species are caught that way. It's a major waste, which we're now avoiding.
The situation with respect to spawning grounds is not quite so clear. Some species have very well identified spawning beds, like herring and capelin. With cod, they don't actually spawn on the bottom; they spawn off the bottom and the eggs float up to the surface. The location of spawning is actually quite variable.
We have implemented some closed areas, which relate to spawning grounds and perhaps more frequently to areas where juvenile fish are found. Protection of juveniles so that they are able to survive to maturity without being fished too young is a major consideration.
So yes, we are interested in ensuring that fishing gear is appropriate for the species being fished and doesn't cause conservation problems with other species or with young or small individuals in the species that's being fished.
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, the concern I had was in fact - and the question I asked earlier related to this - the duplication or the voids that might be between the current act and the amendments to the Fisheries Act and whether in fact any consideration had been taken with regard to protecting the species, which I consider to be an endangered species.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
I have one brief question of Mr. Swanson and then we'll go in camera for a brief discussion.
Mr. Swanson, in the proposed legislation to transfer powers to the provinces from the Fisheries Act that you referred to earlier, this would apply, if I remember correctly, only to landlocked provinces. Is that correct?
Mr. Swanson: The provisions in the act do not distinguish between landlocked and coastal provinces. Our plan of action at the moment and our intent is to enter into discussions with the inland provinces, where they currently have responsibility for managing the fishery under delegated authority through the Fisheries Act.
The Chairman: But in the charts you distributed to members of Parliament a few months ago, describing the effect of the bill, certain provinces such as British Columbia would not be among those to whom powers would be devolved. If I remember correctly, the devolution would take place in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario. Can you clarify where the devolution would take place?
Mr. Swanson: To start on the west coast, as I'm sure you're aware, there have been detailed discussions going on between the Government of Canada and B.C. in terms of our roles and responsibilities with regard to the management of the salmon fishery in particular. I don't think those discussions have concluded yet, but I don't believe they envisage the delegation of habitat management authority with regard to those species.
.1035
We have had some discussions on delegation with the prairie provinces and Ontario. At the moment, there are no discussions with any of the other provinces on this question.
The Chairman: What would be the fate, for instance, of the St. Lawrence beluga whale? Will it be protected by the Fisheries Act, as it is now, or will it eventually no longer be enjoying the protection the Fisheries Act extends to the beluga whale?
Mr. Swanson: There are no changes contemplated in the legislation or the arrangements that would affect the protection of the beluga whale under the Fisheries Act.
The Chairman: So there will be no devolution of powers in that direction?
Mr. Swanson: We're not in any discussions at the moment, nor are there any planned, that would alter our responsibilities with respect to the beluga.
The Chairman: So the discussion is limited only to the prairie provinces and Ontario?
Mr. Swanson: We've been having discussions with the prairie provinces and Ontario, yes.
The Chairman: And that's all. Can you envisage ten years from now a picture whereby we would have a balkanization of devolution in Canada whereby you have devolution of powers in the prairie provinces and Ontario but not in the rest of Canada?
Mr. Swanson: I'm aware that the term ``balkanization'' comes with a certain amount of baggage, but we do have a situation at the moment where we have different fisheries management arrangements across the country. Those arrangements have been determined largely by local circumstances.
As I mentioned earlier, in coastal areas where the fish are found, like salmon, for example - their time is spent in the marine environment, other times in the freshwater environment - we continue to be actively involved. In other parts of the country, where there's no migration of fish into the oceans, where the ownership of resources is in the hands of the provinces, where the allocation of fish is a provincial responsibility and not a federal responsibility, the management of the fishery in terms of those responsibilities that are conveyed under the federal head of power in the Constitution has been delegated to provincial governments. Ten years from now, those arrangements will continue to evolve based on what the local circumstances are.
The Chairman: All right. That's quite helpful.
Let's bring this to a conclusion. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank those of you who brought along a brief. Those of you who didn't can still do that at the beginning of the week. It certainly would help, as Madam Kraft Sloan indicated. We regret very much the absence of certain departments who didn't come this morning.
Thank you very much for your appearance and your assistance.
This committee now turns itself into an in camera meeting for a brief discussion.
[Proceedings continue in camera]