ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

• 0903

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)): I see that we have quorum, so I'd like to call the committee to order.

Today I would like to welcome David M. Green, who's the chair of the Redpath Museum at McGill, and the chair of COSEWIC as well. Marco Festa-Bianchet, who is co-chair, is from the department of biology at the University of Sherbrooke. Welcome.

After we hear our two COSEWIC witnesses, we'll be hearing from Dr. Scudder, who's a biologist from the University of British Columbia.

As is the tradition of the committee, you should keep your remarks to ten minutes. We'll hear the COSEWIC witnesses first and then we'll take a round of questions. We're going to hear them both together? Okay, I apologize. We'll hear from COSEWIC for ten, Dr. Scudder for ten, and then we'll do our round of questions. Thank you.

Dr. Green, will you be beginning?

Dr. David M. Green (Chair, Redpath Museum, McGill University; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)): Sure.

It's nice to be back. We were here last fall, and here we are again to talk about a new version of the bill.

• 0905

In the deliberations you've had, I've seen and noted with great pleasure the praise that's been heaped upon COSEWIC for the work it does. Nice things have been said about us, and I appreciate that very much.

I have very brief remarks today because we said a lot last fall and the comments are just about the same.

I want to refer to the letter I received from the minister this past winter explaining to me some of the changes that had been made to Bill C-5 relative to Bill C-33 in light of the comments and recommendations we made last fall. Those changes, including changes to definitions of individual and special concern and some other things and the fact that an altered COSEWIC list will be published, are relatively minor ones compared to some of the things we had to say. So I very briefly want to put back in many of the recommendations that we had in our brief, to get them back on the record.

Among a number of things we had to say was that we recommended that the designation “not at risk” is also a classification of risk and should be treated as such and have some merit put on it. It's not something separate. It's a designation we have talked about and considered, and it's a decision we've come to that a species is not at risk. It's not just somewhere else.

We also had some words about taking into account applicable treaty and land claims agreements. I say this guardedly. Much has been said about COSEWIC remaining apolitical and the importance that is placed upon this scientific listing being divorced from political concerns. There are two ways, I would point out, to make the listing process political, one of which has been stated very often. If the listing process is turned over to politicians, the politicians' job is to listen to people, to take into account people's concerns, social and economic. That's not what you want to make and what you want to put into a listing where we simply want to consider what is the truth of the status of a plant or an animal species. As we've heard repeatedly, people don't want it politicized that way.

There's another way in which the process can be politicized, and that is to turn the scientists on the committee into politicians and force upon them the need to consider those concerns as well—political, social, economic concerns. We don't want to do that either. The committee members, in order to remain apolitical, must also not be turned into politicians.

So we cannot take into account land claims, although we know they are there and we know they're important. We can't take into account borders within Canada or jurisdictions or social or economic or cultural concerns. If we want to know the true biological status of a species, then we have to consider only the scientific biologically relevant information that goes into determining status.

What happens with that once the truth is known is the realm of other people. COSEWIC does not do recovery. It does not plan recovery strategies. It does not involve itself with what comes after. You will get the truth from COSEWIC, and the truth is arrived at in a manner that's not in the political realm in any way.

That was one of our recommendations. That clause in Bill C-5 has been changed so that it states that any applicable provisions of treaty and land claims... I don't know if that really does it, but there has been a change, at any rate.

We wanted to clarify who was going to be on the committee and to clarify who alternate members were going to be, because they also have to be accredited. Everyone who does vote on the committee should be approved and meet the credentials and be able to participate.

• 0910

It is said in the terms of reference for COSEWIC that we will be provided with a secretariat and support. In the bill it says that the minister “may” provide these things. We've heard a lot about “will” versus “may” and “shall”. There's another “may” that's not in the spirit of what has already been approved by the CASCC, which is a “will”. We have to have the support. We have duties under the law that this bill describes. We have to have the ability to perform those duties, so we have to have a secretariat and it must be under our functional direction.

The controversial one was what to do with the list. I point out and reiterate that members of COSEWIC themselves are not of one voice on what to do with the list, in a rather interesting way, ever mindful of the apolitical nature of COSEWIC, really wanting to avoid being in the public eye and making political decisions. Nearly half of our members are of the opinion that we should not say anything about what happens to the list and how it gets translated into law. And that's fine. As well, many of our members are civil servants working for governments who are constrained by that position not to speak on these issues.

On the other hand, slightly more, just a few more, felt that we should say something, and what we should say is what I think has been termed the “negative billing option”, which we detailed in rather precise language in our brief last fall. I think this has now been endorsed by the Species at Risk Working Group, and I think some other voices as well. We suggested and wrote out in some precise detail that the list should be translated into law by government, except that there is an exemption possible that the Governor in Council minister may remove species, because they do have to be concerned about political things—that's what their job is. So a species can be removed, but you have to show why.

We are asked and constrained to give good justifications for why a species should be on the list. I think it behoves the government to say why a species should not be on the list. In other words, everybody should do their job and show their work. That's what was endorsed by a bare majority of our members, those who said we should say something.

Lastly, and arising from the meeting last time, we felt that should be done within 60 days. We also agreed around the table last time that we should say that the list that is printed at the end of the bill should come into effect upon proclamation. I think that's what we wanted to say.

Having reminded you of what we said before, on the changes that were not so obviously made to the previous bill to this one, I once again give a plea for COSEWIC, which I'm extremely proud to chair—a fine bunch of people, very dedicated—and once again say that we are scrupulously apolitical and we intend to remain so. We wish to be allowed to remain so, so that you and the people of Canada can get the facts as best we can deliver them.

With that, I will stop. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Dr. Green.

Dr. Festa-Bianchet, was there anything you wanted to add?

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet (Co-Chair, Department of Biology, University of Sherbrooke; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)): Not at this point.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Dr. Scudder.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder (Individual Presentation): Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation on Bill C-5.

I last formally met with the committee on January 21, 1997, when I presented a brief on Bill C-65. You'll find my comments today are basically similar to those I've made before, although I have greater concern now because in my opinion Bill C-5 is considerably weaker than the previous bill, Bill C-65, in a number of areas.

• 0915

I'm here as an individual, so maybe I should give some comments on my background. I'm a zoologist. I served for 15 years as head of the department of zoology at the University of British Columbia. More recently, I have also been director of the Centre for Biodiversity Research at UBC. I retired in 1999, but I'm still active in research and public education.

My special area of expertise and interest is biodiversity, conservation biology, biosystematics, biogeography, and evolution. I'm an entomologist and world expert on seed bugs. I've been president of the Canadian Society of Zoologists, the Entomological Society of Canada, and the Pacific division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and vice-president of the Pacific Science Association and the Society for the Study of Evolution.

I'm also on the advisory committee to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, the Nature Trust of British Columbia, and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. I'm a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I've published 260 scientific papers and edited a number of books.

I regret that I was unable to get my brief to the committee for translation prior to this. I finished it at midnight last night. I trust when it gets translated the few typos will be corrected.

At this stage I would like to request that the chair at some time circulate to the committee a copy of an invitation paper that I presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, just a little while ago. It's called “Saving Endangered Species: Legislative and Practical Problems”. It's now in press. I hope you'll be able to read it sometime, and if you do, you'll see that my comments today are totally consistent with the comments I've been making to the scientific community.

I'm familiar with the bills that have been presented over the years by the government, the relevant private members' bills, Charles Caccia's three bills, and the late Bob Wenman's private member's bill. In fact, I helped Bob Wenman write his original draft of the bill.

I've read the endangered species legislation that exists in the United States, Australia, and the provinces, and I've compared them with Bill C-5. I also understand that you've had a presentation by Stewart Elgie, the general counsel for the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. He was a member of the federal task force on endangered species. You'll see, if you read my paper, that I'm in total agreement with virtually everything he said, all the major points he's probably made.

Canada has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and is now legally bound by the provisions. One of these, paragraph 8(d), states that the contracting parties shall, as far as possible and appropriate, “promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings”. And as a preamble to Bill C-5, the Government of Canada is committed to conserving biodiversity.

It also says that the habitats of species at risk are key to their conservation. Species exist in habitats that are part of communities and ecosystems. Species are part of food chains and food webs and are essential parts of the ecological pyramid. I have submitted to the chair a diagram of an ecological pyramid in case there's some concern as to what that term really means and what it depicts.

It's not possible to save species without preserving and saving the food web, the food chain, and the ecological pyramid. It's not possible to save a species without the habitat in the community in an ecosystem. Most of the species at risk today are at risk because of loss of habitat. To protect and save species, it's mandatory to protect and save the habitat.

Just because a species is rare doesn't mean it's necessarily endangered or at risk. All communities and ecosystems have rare species if the community is essentially natural and has not been perturbed too much. Endangerment comes when the basic structure of that community is upset and the existence and the habitat of the community are at risk. If rare species are at risk, so are many other species at risk.

Endangered species and species at risk, in my mind, should never be considered and treated in isolation, out of context. They cannot and should not be considered independent of the community. The ecological linkages are essential, and the habitat associations are imperative.

• 0920

There are four other ecological and biodiversity facts that I wanted to put to the committee that require, in my mind, the need for Canada to have strong legislation.

The first is that our research on the distribution of species at risk in Canada shows there are a number of what we call species at risk hot spots across the country. The South Okanagan in British Columbia is one of these. For the most part, these are also species diversity richness hot spots. So successful legislation to save species at risk will also save a lot of other species because of that richness hot-spot coincidence.

Many of the species at risk in Canada are at the edge of their range. Recent research has shown that a number of the species at risk are existing today in North America only at the edge of their range. They've basically died off in the centre. This research also shows the trend in the collapse of these rare and endangered species is for them to contract to the north. In other words, Canada, and particularly the northwest, is going to become more and more important over time as more species collapse. That means Canada has a major role to play on the continental scale because of this.

Tropical ecosystems have many species in them and probably they also have considerable redundancy. At any one time, if one disappears there's not too much problem. But Canadian ecosystems are in the temperate region and temperate ecosystems typically have fewer species. So if you lose one of those, the impact on the ecosystem is going to be much, much greater. We can't afford to lose one of those essential components in the species-poor ecosystems. This fact has been experimentally proven by the work of Dr. David Schindler on the acidification of Canadian lakes.

I turn to what I think are the needs of the bill. I think for these reasons and others, Canada needs a very strong legislation. We need to preserve and protect all of Canada's biodiversity, including the rare ones, for the future health, wealth, and prosperity of its citizens.

Although the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the federal government the power to address national concerns, it has chosen not to treat endangered species as a national concern. Species at risk are now considered as a shared responsibility. There has been of course, as you know, a federal-territorial-provincial wildlife ministers agreement, the national accord for the protection of species. This has established mechanisms for cooperation, committing them to complementary legislation and programs to ensure the protection of species at risk and their habitats.

For this to be successful and for the safety net to be successful, the federal government must establish strong and effective legislation. Otherwise Bill C-5 won't serve the needs. In my mind it doesn't in this regard at the present time.

I think it's deficient in a number of areas. The two main ones are the initial listing of species at risk and habitat protection. I also submit that it has confused two separate issues, namely the protection of species at risk and the recovery of species at risk.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has done excellent work preparing the list of species at risk. It has a tremendous reputation in the scientific community and worldwide. It's good to see that this committee will be given formal status. However, the fact that the scientifically established list will not become the legal list is a major problem. As Bill C-5 now stands, the final decision as to whether to list a species at risk will be a political one, not a scientific one, and I regard this as a major shortcoming of Bill C-5.

Either a species is at risk or it isn't. No matter what any politician may say, it is either at risk or it isn't. In my view the legislation should automatically list the COSEWIC-established list, but then the legislation should allow cabinet or whoever is responsible to exclude certain species, provided the reasons are reported in the public record.

In the majority of provinces where the politicians are involved in the listing process, where it's left to cabinet, most of the COSEWIC species have not been listed—the majority of them have not been legally listed. New Brunswick is the best, with a 70% listing of COSEWIC species. Nova Scotia will list all of them in its legislation.

• 0925

As Bill C-5 is now worded, the COSEWIC species that are not listed politically will in fact have no protection whatsoever. They will be outside any protection, with nothing to stop people from killing them or destroying their habitat. There are no recovery plans or rescue funding; there is nothing at all. This is, to my mind, morally indefensible.

All the scientifically listed species should, to my mind, be provided with the immediate, automatic prohibitions that are listed in subclause 32(1) of the bill, which states:

(1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.

Nothing less is acceptable if the species is at risk.

My final point in this area is that I'm not too happy with the definition of “species” in Bill C-5. Currently it defines a wildlife species as a “species, subspecies or biologically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism”. The term “biologically distinct population” is vague. It doesn't make any sense at all to me as a biologist. I think it should be changed.

I suggest that if it read “a species, geographic subspecies or biogeographically distinct population”, that would make much more sense scientifically.

If I may, I will turn briefly to the term “residence” in the bill. In the general prohibitions of Bill C-5, clause 33 states:

No person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species

The definition section of the bill states that residence means:

a specific dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area, place or structure, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing or hibernating.

This is an attempt to avoid and circumvent using the word “habitat”. It's biologically unacceptable. It doesn't mean a darn thing to a biologist and a scientist.

The term “residence” is nonsense with respect to many vertebrates that have winter range, summer range, or breeding grounds. It doesn't apply to plants. What's the residence of a plant? It doesn't apply to most invertebrates.

For example, let me take the example of a butterfly. It lays its eggs in one place. The larvae feed on plants. When they have defoliated one plant, they'll move to another plant. It then has a pupa that has established itself somewhere else. The adult then comes out and needs to forage for nectar somewhere else. Where's the residence? Residence is a meaningless term in that context, so it just can't apply in those contexts.

If one used the words “habitat” or “critical habitat”, it would all make sense. The prohibition should be against the damage and destruction of “critical habitat”, to be defined in the bill as the habitat that is necessary for the survival of the individual.

It should be easy to find out what that is because the status reports that are provided by COSEWIC consider the critical habitat. Nowhere in the bill is habitat protection designated as mandatory. Nowhere is it required. There is no interim habitat protection period between the listing and the establishment of a recovery plan, which in the case of threatened species can take two years. You could list it, destroy all the habitat, and still follow the bill. It makes no sense. It's not acceptable to my mind.

The contents of Bill C-5, I believe, should make habitat conservation or preservation mandatory, not discretionary. Bill C-65 was much better in this regard. It said habitat shall be protected; this bill says it may be protected.

It should also say that with respect to the safety net this will be invoked, not this may be invoked.

It's very strange that many of the provinces have in fact a higher standard than the federal government's in this regard. For example, mandatory habitat protection is contained in endangered species legislation in Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario, and it's in the Prince Edward Island Wildlife Conservation Act.

It's present in the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the Mexican ecology law. Habitat protection is mandated in the federal government's own Fisheries Act, terrestrial land-use regulations, wildlife area regulations, and migratory bird regulations. Why isn't it in Bill C-5? It doesn't make any sense.

Until a few days ago I would have said—and I think the paper that I will ask to be circulated... I would have said that the recovery part of Bill C-5 is satisfactory. However, recent events have in fact made me doubt this first impression. I'm referring to the recent disbanding of the recovery teams for the harlequin duck, the piping plover, and the roseate tern by the Canadian Wildlife Service's Atlantic regional director. Again, I would ask the chair at some stage to table the letters from Dr. George Finney, dated February 22, 2001, and another letter from Dr. Montevecchi, dated March 20, 2001—my typescript says “1002”; I'm sorry about that, and I'd be grateful if it could get corrected. Until February 22 of this year, Dr. Montevecchi was chair of the Harlequin Duck Recovery Team.

• 0930

Dr. Finney, the Atlantic director, states in his letter that the Canadian Wildlife Service personnel need to lead all recovery teams because of the nature of accountabilities to be established under the new SARA. He states that it would not be prudent or necessarily fair to pass on the legal accountabilities to other participants on the team. He has unilaterally disbanded the committees and, to my mind, unilaterally decided the Canadian Wildlife Service should chair all committees. There are serious consequences that will flow from that. It's not desirable and not acceptable to the non-scientific community.

If one of the ramifications of Bill C-5 is that all recovery teams must be headed by Canadian Wildlife Service personnel, the bill should say so. This should then be vigorously opposed.

Recovery planning is difficult at the best of times. It requires all the best minds, and if this sort of action is going to turn the majority of scientists off the operation, it won't succeed. If this is the new RENEW approach, it's doomed to fail. I think if these are the implications of Bill C-5, it needs to be amended. I hope the committee will seriously consider the implications and consequences of this sort of change.

Scientists acknowledge that it's not always possible to recover species at risk. There are a number of circumstances where in fact it just isn't possible or isn't probable, and they know that. There are also other factors, social and economic impacts, that may affect decisions to implement a recovery plan. It's my opinion that this is where the political input needs to come. This is where the politicians need to make the decision as to whether in fact—there may be various reasons, and they can be scientific or otherwise—the recovery strategy is not possible. A clause of the bill in fact points out clearly that it needs to be stated when that's not feasible.

My final comment is with respect to the ecosystem approach. Subclause 41(3) says:

The competent minister may adopt a multi-species or an ecosystem approach when preparing the recovery strategy if he or she considers it appropriate to do so.

To my mind, it's always appropriate to do so. It makes no sense to consider species in isolation. One should always look at a multiple-species ecosystem approach. I think the bill needs to be strengthened to say that in fact it shall be done when this is invoked. Nothing makes sense biologically to do anything other than that.

In closing, I believe Canada has a legal obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity to provide protection for all species at risk in this country. It must provide the framework for the legal protection of the species at risk and in fact all species that are in the community. Habitat protection is essential.

It may appear difficult to put a strong, respected, scientifically sound Species at Risk Act in place at this time. However, I believe it is necessary to serve as a standard for the provinces. The costs may be high, but if they appear high now, the future costs are going to be tremendous. Protection is not cheap. Recovery and restoration are expensive and rarely successful.

I hope the committee will take the opportunity to significantly strengthen the provisions of Bill C-5. The Canadian public puts high priority on protecting the species at risk in this country, and I hope the government will do likewise. Thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Dr. Scudder.

I would like to let the committee know—I've been informed by the clerk—that Dr. Montevecchi's letter is in the process of being translated, so we'll have that copy out to you soon. And we will ensure that the other documents you have given us will be translated as well.

Yes?

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Will that include Dr. Scudder's speaking notes?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CA): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

• 0935

I have several questions, which I'll pose, and then you can answer them as you see fit.

First of all, we hear the claim that some of the species on the COSEWIC list are at the northern range of the species. In other words, there are lots of them across the border, but very few wherever it is in Canada. I wonder if you could address that concern and tell us how that's dealt with.

Secondly, we are concerned about politicians making the decisions about what should be on that list, largely because they're subject to lobbying and where it is, whose riding it is, and so on. But we hear concern as well that biologists and universities, and so on, are also subject to the politics of lobbying. In other words, if they want a research grant, it would be good to do this or that regarding a species. I wonder if you might address the politics of science.

Thirdly, how are the NGOs that are on COSEWIC selected, and what process is there for other NGOs getting on that list? What is the process by which that could happen or does happen, the changes, and so on? Or is there a select group?

Dr. Scudder, you mentioned that the centre is dying and that often the fringes are the only place where the species exist. That then means that if we have a lot of species on the fringe in Canada, obviously the U.S. endangered species legislation isn't working very well, if in fact the centre is dying.

Fifthly, a concern I've raised a lot of times in the committee, and I wonder if the COSEWIC people could address it, is about first nations cooperation with species on this list, preservation of these species, recovery of these species, and what concerns you might have about species that are crossing over between those two areas and how we are going to deal with that politically and scientifically.

Thank you.

Dr. David Green: I'll start. I want to say that I am here representing COSEWIC, not as a private individual, so I'm only going to talk about COSEWIC-related things. We can talk afterwards about other things; that would be fine.

I can deal with the third question first, because that's the easy one, about the NGOs. Right now we have no NGOs on COSEWIC. We have changed the structure of COSEWIC, and we have three seats that are held by individuals from across Canada. Last year we put out a call for interested people who would like to be on COSEWIC. We sent that out to a number of organizations that we figured would have people who would be interested, and we now have three members who are there as individuals from across the country, not as representatives of NGOs. So we don't have any NGOs.

The three NGOs who had been on COSEWIC had been there from the very beginning. They served COSEWIC very well, admirably well, and we appreciated their presence in the people they sent. But conditions have changed.

On the first question, it is true that a number of species are in Canada at the northern edge. But it is equally true that, moving southward, there are a lot of species that are in Canada but just creep over the border into the United States, and they end up on the United States' list.

In fact, as far as COSEWIC is concerned, our mandate is to describe the status of species in Canada. In essence, our universe ends at the Canadian border. This is what we've been asked to do, say how things are doing here.

• 0940

In terms of recovery planning and what to do about it, the fact that there may be a reservoir of individuals outside is a good thing. We do have the responsibility to look after our own house. We have a category of extirpated. Things can be extirpated from Canada; they live somewhere else, but they are no longer in this country. This is a bill about Canadian species at risk. COSEWIC is about the status of wildlife in Canada, and that's what we report.

If there is a possibility for Canadian populations to be propped up and recovered somewhat naturally by individuals from across the border, we take that into account in our status designations, that some recovery may be possible. But we have been asked, and I think the people in Canada need to know, what the status is here, and that is what we do.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's shocking.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills, your time is up.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Earlier, you said that you wouldn't want to see scientists turn into politicians. Contrary to Mr. Mills, I wouldn't want to see politicians become scientists either.

My first question to COSEWIC officials concerns COSEWIC's scientific independence, the make up of the committee and the appointment process.

Clause 27(1) of the bill notes the following:

27.(1) The Government in Could may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by regulation, establish the List of Wildlife Species at Risk and amend the List by adding a wildlife species to the List, by reclassifying a listed wildlife species or by removing a listed wildlife species from the List.

In your estimation, how independent is COSEWIC from a scientific standpoint in light of this provision? Clause 16(1) of the bill which pertains to the composition of COSEWIC further notes the following:

16.1 COSEWIC is to be composed of members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and with any experts that the Minister considers to be appropriate.

In view of this provision, it is possible that at some point, COSEWIC may not be composed of qualified experts having the necessary scientific expertise to ensure the protection of endangered species?

[English]

Dr. David Green: To answer those very important questions,

[Translation]

I'm sorry, but I will answer that in English. I'm more comfortable speaking English.

[English]

COSEWIC strives, around the table, to remain scrupulously apolitical. I can read you a paragraph from the latest version of our organization's procedures manual, which is what we've written to describe ourselves. It remains to be approved, but this is an important little paragraph, and we're very keen to preserve this. The COSEWIC members do not represent the agency, group, or region from which they're drawn. They're appointed on the basis of their expertise, and will, to the best of their ability, provide independent, impartial scientific advice and recommendations related to COSEWIC's mission. In this context, neither COSEWIC nor its members will consider social, political, economic, or personal factors when fulfilling their duties.

That is something that COSEWIC has put in its own manual. It's something we ascribe to and believe in very firmly.

We also have a list in the back of minimum credentials that a member of COSEWIC must conform to in order to be a member of COSEWIC.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I understand what you're saying. These are internal policies. I'm talking about the proposed legislation as it is drafted. Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the components you mentioned in the bill so as to ensure greater independence?

Mr. David Green: I see what you mean.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Green, briefly, please.

Dr. David Green: Briefly, the members from the jurisdictions are appointed by the jurisdictions, and they are approved by the minister as a matter of course.

The independent members are first vetted, and their applications go through COSEWIC. COSEWIC makes the recommendation as to who these people should be, and that goes up and is approved as a matter of course.

• 0945

The chairs of the species specialist groups are chosen by nominating committees composed of COSEWIC members and species specialist groups. That goes up; we make those recommendations and they go up. So the membership is not at this time imposed upon us from on high.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Dr. Green, I have some questions on money. Is there a budget that's being proposed or has one been envisioned for the work you will be doing under the legislation?

Dr. David Green: Yes, there is a budget. For the details, I have to ask the chief of our secretariat.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Could you provide that to the committee, not right now but by way of correspondence?

Dr. David Green: I'll see what I can do.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Also, I noted in your brief last fall that you were about to set up an aboriginal traditional and community knowledge subcommittee. I think I know the answer to this, but this issue of non-political involvement by COSEWIC has a political tinge to it, whether it's political correctness or whatever, and you're bringing in the aboriginal community at this point and formalizing it.

First, has that committee in fact been established, and, secondly, what comments would you have to make as to whether that is in fact a political endeavour on the part of COSEWIC?

Dr. David Green: We're in the process of getting that committee established. It's not yet established and will not be represented at our meeting next week, but we hope it will be established come this fall. Whatever the genesis of this committee may have been, and, yes, we're perfectly aware that such things have political tinges to them, nevertheless, we recognize that there is a great deal of information that resides not in the scientific literature, not even in the grey literature, but that is oral, that is present among community members.

In the reports we do we deal with a lot of information that is not published, observations by keen naturalists and our own observations, and we use that information. So in order to tap into this reservoir of good knowledge, if this is a good way to do it, then this is a good thing to do.

So long as this committee deals with that level where it exists to provide us with information, and that is indeed the terms of reference of this committee, then it will be a part of COSEWIC, and COSEWIC around the table doesn't deal with politics. As soon as it does, if we hear things that are political from any of our members, we don't deal with it. We say sorry.

Mr. Joe Comartin: How is the committee being composed, that is, how is it being chosen?

Dr. David Green: That is still under discussion and I cannot tell you right now.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do I still have time?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Briefly, about a minute and a half.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We heard some evidence, I think it was from the department, that the list is under review at this period of time. One, is that correct, and two, how is the review coming?

Dr. David Green: The review is coming along quite nicely.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Dr. Green, I'm looking for specific numbers. How many have you reviewed and confirmed?

Dr. David Green: I have some numbers. I think these are the same numbers you saw before: we've reassessed something like 155 species, including extinct and extirpated, endangered and threatened. We haven't gotten to the special concerns yet. We're going to start to do that this year. We have been doing the most pressing cases first, and of those the vast majority have come through the reassessment process and have remained at the same designation.

We've done this because we have instituted a more rigorously defensible and more easily made consistent set of criteria. Irrespective of the bill we were going to do this anyway; it's something that needed to be done. So with the institution of this modified way of doing things, we would end up with a list of things with the new stuff and a list of things with the old way of doing it, and so you'd end up with an inconsistent list.

• 0950

So we've had to go back. The advent of this legislation has meant that we've had to do it more quickly. There has been some necessity to do it more rapidly so we've been meeting twice a year lately. We'll meet again this fall, in part because this has added a lot more work for us to do, to go back and do these reassessments. We'll get them done and the list will be made consistent, according to these new criteria.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Dr. Green.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Green, I apologize for being late, but I have read and have been keeping abreast of your recommendations. I understand that one of your key points is that if the present COSEWIC list is not rolled over to become the initial starting list, your recommendation is that any changes to the list be made public. Is that correct?

Dr. David Green: Changes to the list should be made public, yes. We're always making changes to the list. Lately, twice a year we've been making changes to the list. After next week, when we meet in Osoyoos, the list you have on the back of the bill will be out of date, not by much, but we will have made changes by then. All of these things must be made note of. It all must be made public.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Do you think by recommending this it's going to offset the negative impact, in my view—that's my editing—that political listings will have?

Do you think that when species are removed or not added, and it's put into the public forum, this in some way will offset, as I said, the fact that we are not going to have scientific listing here?

Dr. David Green: I think it's the minimum that should be done. Everyone should show their work. This is supposed to be—and it's been said many times—an open and transparent process.

We have been asked to give justifications for everything we've done, and so we will, we shall, we do. And it should be put in front of the public, because that's the openness and transparency of it. We show our work. Show your work.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Scudder, I realize that a lot of the questions have been directed to the chair of COSEWIC, but if you feel there is something you would like to comment on, please do so.

Mr. Geoffrey Scudder: Yes. In this regard, those changes, for the most part, are minor. Very rarely is anything removed. Very rarely is anything downgraded; if anything, they're upgraded to a more endangered status. So I think the only change to come is that as the committee is able to look at more and more species—and I have a big backlog of species I haven't even considered yet, more status reports—there are going to be more and more added.

There was nothing, as far as I recall, that has been removed. In the reassessment, using the new IUCN criteria, nothing was downgraded. One was upgraded. So the list is a real solid list, and to think that these changes are going to weaken it in any way, no, it's just going to get stronger and more impressive in the sense of the endangerment.

It's as solid as anybody can get.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: All right then. I was talking about this process as something that, as I said, was going to countermand what I see as a negative process, which is that this bill is proceeding with political listing rather than scientific listing. I'm satisfied by your response that it isn't going to assist in that regard.

Do I have another minute, or should I wait for a second round?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): One minute.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have one quick comment, and then maybe if you don't have time to answer me, you can ponder for when it comes back to me.

Yesterday I took part in a technical briefing on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It had its five-year review, and we were told by the people involved in it that a lot of the strengths and amendments and changes that have been made were the result of wide discussions among frequently disparate groups. In other words, it had the use of multi-stakeholders. They, environment and industry, had come together and participated in the process, and not only did they input but they were brought in at a point when the legislation was still under wraps and they were able to, again, augment and produce a good piece of legislation, which has kept most everybody quite happy.

The testimony we've heard in this committee is that a similar group came forward with recommendations. They had come together as ranchers and miners and environmental groups, and they brought forward recommendations, two of which were scientific listing and mandatory habitat, and in fact the legislation that was born is below that bar. I found it quite interesting that we have one process here having data set, and in fact we have heard a lot of disappointment reflected by our own, but that was not the outcome here. Since I can feel the chair behind me, you may want to chat with me on that one again when it rolls around to me.

• 0955

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I'd like to comment on that. There have been two. The federal task force had pretty strong recommendations exactly along that line. Since then the industry, pulp and paper and the rest of it, have got together with the NGOs and the scientists and the rest. They came through with exactly the same recommendations, and they are not included in the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have two questions. The first one is probably for Dr. Scudder. Whatever perceived strengths and weaknesses in the bill you have outlined, are you satisfied that it deals equally with aquatic species, compared with species on land? The reason I ask is that I live in proximity to Lake Ontario and I've watched that lake deteriorate to the point where it's not even recommended that you eat the fish on a regular basis. I fear the technologies that are being applied by urbanization around Lake Ontario are actually exacerbating the problem. Do you see any possibility that this act may help?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I don't know whether it's possible in the bill, but certainly, in not considering the habitat requirements, you can avoid considering all of those problems. If you had the habitat requirement going along, whereby you've got to preserve the habitat, then you would have to worry about the condition in those aquatic systems, and if anything, they're going to come up short, because the aquatic habitat is being destroyed faster than anything else. In the South Okanagan, for example, 95% is gone, and it is also deteriorating in terms of quality—it's not really pristine habitat any more. So by ignoring habitat and not making habitat protection a requirement there, you don't have to worry about that, and indeed aquatic species are in really bad straits. In fact, the highest percentage endangerment in the country is in fish and aquatic species.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you. I have just one other question, Madam Chairman, and this could be directed to anyone. It adds to the dilemma. Are humans part of nature?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Because every ecosystem on earth is human dominated, they have to be. They're there, they're part of the ecosystem. The trouble is, their footprint is too big.

Dr. David Green: There's no place at all that's free from human impact. There's no place that is now completely pristine on this earth.

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: And there are probably no humans who are free from the impact that results from their own activities. We don't just do damage, we receive a lot of damage too.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Reed.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I'm a little disconcerted by some of Dr. Scudder's comments. I'd like to come back for a moment to the original objective of the list. I've always believed that such a list was critical in order to identify species at risk and, aside from the main goal which is to ensure the survival of such species, to determine what steps must be taken to ensure their survival. The objective is not to establish a list of endangered species that are now extinct. I thought the whole point of the exercise was to put in place mechanisms to ensure their survival.

Somewhere along the way, Dr. Scudder appears to be saying that biologists can now conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that some species will never recover. Is a special notation of some kind made in the case of these species? Do we put three xs next to this species on the list to indicate that it is pointless to take any kind action? Do we tell ourselves that we must intervene, even though we know it will be pointless to do so?

• 1000

I'm a little concerned that a list has been drawn up containing the names of species which will die out for natural reasons or because they've come to the end of their lifespan. Should we intervene to assist these species or should we put in place a process that ultimately will not serve any purpose? Wouldn't it just be better to cross the name off the list and to move on to another species?

[English]

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: If I can give an example, one of the species on the species at risk list is the sage thrasher in southern British Columbia. There were only two specimens of the sage thrasher, seen in Canada four years ago. You can have it on your list. What happens is that they breed in the States, the second generation males often migrate, and they have the second generations in Canada. Sometimes those populations in the States are not very successful, so they don't send any second generation ones up into Canada to breed. There have been no sage thrashers seen for the last four years, so how is Canada going to produce a population minimum of 500 in that habitat in a recovery program? There's nothing you can do. You've got to wait for the population to naturally build up. I'm on the renewal committee, South Okanagan, and what we're doing is to make sure the habitat is there, so that when they naturally spread up with population dynamics or climate change, we have a habitat for them.

You can put all the money you like in, but most of the transplant operations that have been carried out have not worked. They've done it with the burrowing owl, brought them in from Washington, and put them in—they've not succeeded. They didn't succeed, because there was something wrong causing them to die out in the first place. So you can put all the money in recovery that you like, but you're not going to create a species. With certain ones you're not going to be able to establish a guaranteed recovery program. Scientifically, as it sits right now, you're in the hands of the species.

I'm saying that scientifically there's a limit to what you can do to bring a recovery about. If naturally the species is collapsing everywhere for genetic composition, homogeneity, or something like that, you can't inject new genetic variation, it's going to go out in any case. You can do those studies to find out what the genetic problems are, but there are potentially a number of scientific situations where you cannot recover them. We're not exact—scientists know that. Politics has not been coming into it. When you sit down and assess at the recovery level with a good recovery team, with all the strength of the science, they will be able to say scientifically, it's not possible to go this route. I'm saying that we all acknowledge that.

Species die out naturally, about one or two every year worldwide. We weren't expecting too many of them to naturally die out, but it might happen. They're not there forever. They last about five to ten million years at the most. We don't know where we are on that trajectory. Only a recovery team will know that, but scientists acknowledge you can't save everything.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Are you going to list them all in the same way then?

[English]

Dr. David Green: When we do the list, we take into account all those factors that are affecting the status of the species. In some cases we know that what is affecting the species is not something of the species itself—that people are hunting it, that people are destroying nests or anything—but rather there are external factors. If you want to do recovery plans for such a species, you don't actually do anything with the species itself. It's all habitat or it's all something else that's involved. It doesn't matter what you do with sage thrashers. You can breed them in captivity until you're blue, it won't make any difference. There has to be some place for them to be when they come into Canada. So in recovering sage thrashers, you don't have to deal with the sage thrashers. There are many cases like that.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: However, in the case of species slated to die out for genetic reasons, do you list them the same way?

I understand very well that when some measures are warranted to protect a natural habitat, then the species must be listed. That is an important step in the process. However, if it's possible to determine that the species is about to become extinct for genetic reasons, or if we know that, regardless of the steps taken to protect the habitat or the species, the latter will become extinct, is the species in question then listed any differently?

• 1005

[English]

Dr. David Green: We have these several categories—these categories of risk. So we can put things in them. They're rather blunt. You stick them in a box.

But when we put them into these categories, we consider everything that is happening to them. Is it in decline? What is in decline? Is it the habitat that's declining? Is it the number of animals that are declining? Are they declining in genetic variants? Are they losing the ability to adapt? We consider various things that go into it. If we see that it meets these criteria—that it is endangered in the country—for whatever reason that may be, so we declare it.

But then we stop. That's the end of COSEWIC's job. As Geoff would say, then it would go to a team of scientists to plan a recovery strategy. What is feasible? What is doable? What is possible to be done with this, based on that information?

Sometimes you can do things by direct intervention with the species itself. Sometimes you have to deal with the habitat. Sometimes you just have to deal with people. Those things are what happen afterwards—beyond knowing what it is. But we take all that into consideration and tell you if the present circumstances continue, this species will go.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Dr. Green.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Just to follow up on Mr. Mills' point, if we have a species that's about to go extinct or is threatened and it's in Canada, but you can find it all over the place outside Canada, would we treat that species differently from another species verging on extinction in Canada and Canada was the only place in the world where it still remained?

Dr. David Green: We would probably put that in as we get to it. We can't do everything. We can't list everything all at once. It takes time.

They'll probably have different priorities for our ability to deal with them. We would like to get the endemic species done and on the list first. But it doesn't mean that in the end they have a higher status or a lower status for our purposes than something that is just across the border.

I point out that this question goes both ways. We've been asked why we don't have a higher status for grizzly bears, for instance, in Canada. Grizzly bears are in deep trouble in the United States, and here we do not have them listed as endangered. We've been asked in the States why we don't list them as endangered. Well, they're not endangered in Canada, that's true. So they have listed them as being endangered because in the United States they certainly are.

We have responsibility, and we've been asked to deal with the situation in Canada. The Americans aren't going to intervene to protect our wildlife. Russians won't do it. It's our stuff.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It seems that perhaps we should.

Dr. David Green: For our purposes you need to know what's going on here.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Anyway, I thought I'd asked a fairly simple question, but apparently not.

Dr. Scudder raised a point about the whole issue of residence versus habitat protection. He makes a point as a scientist that protecting residence without protecting habitat is somewhat ridiculous—he didn't use these words, but perhaps somewhat fraudulent. I just wonder what your views are.

Dr. David Green: Well, I could say I'm only here to talk about COSEWIC.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I raise a point of order on this?

Dr. David Green: Do you view that a cop-out? I'm sorry.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to raise a point of order.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is to the chair and to the witness. When one appears in front of a parliamentary committee, one has the protection of immunity from any negative consequence that might flow from that testimony.

I don't know of any law or provision that gives a witness the right to say “I'm not going to answer your question”. So I wonder if perhaps the chair would consult with her clerk and her researcher/advisers and maybe instruct the witness that he should answer my question.

Dr. David Green: I will say—

Mr. Gar Knutson: You don't have the floor yet, sir.

Dr. David Green: I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Just a moment, Dr. Green.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We either do our job or we don't.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Well, essentially, the way our committee operates is to a lot of goodwill.

Dr. David Green: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Having said that, after my consultation with the chair, because it is a parliamentary committee, there is a requirement to answer the question. If you don't answer the question, we can certainly bring our concerns to the House. However, I wouldn't like to go to that level of intervention on this particular issue.

• 1010

We have had witness who come before the committee who give other kinds of requirements—

Dr. David Green: I wouldn't want to—

Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's not fair. If you're going to put him in that spot, Madam Chair, he's certainly entitled to get his own opinion and his own advice before he's forced to make an answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Comartin, if you'd hear me out for two seconds, what I had said is that this committee operates with a great deal of goodwill. What I had said was, in consultation with the chair, witnesses are required to answer questions. If they say they will not answer a question, then the committee has the right to take the matter up in the House. What I was about to say was that witnesses come before our committee and sometimes, for whatever reason, they decline to answer the question. It has not been the tradition of the committee to do this.

I was just giving an interpretation of a point of order that was raised by Mr. Knutson. I would suspect that we are all here because we care about endangered species in this country and that we are all operating with a sense of goodwill. I would suspect that Dr. Green is here in the same capacity.

If you have difficulty answering the question, you can state that you have difficulty answering the question. I'm just giving you the interpretation of the rules of procedure as requested by Mr. Knutson.

Thank you.

Dr. David Green: If I may say—I don't want to make an issue of it—I thought I was here, really, to represent COSEWIC and only deal with those concerns. I'm not intending to duck a question or anything. I'm happy for the clarification—the purview in which I can operate here, which is just fine.

At COSEWIC we deal with habitat. We don't talk about residence. We deal with habitat—critical habitat—and that's what we identify. We don't use the term residence at all, because we don't know what it means.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Because it's ridiculous to use the term?

Dr. David Green: I didn't say ridiculous. I just said we don't know what it means. When you apply it to a pelagic fish or to a butterfly there's no such thing as residence.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): So, Dr. Green, if I'm hearing you correctly, I apologize. I hadn't seen this concern echoed in your brief. But this is something that you would like to put on record, that COSEWIC sees the definition of residence as not being biologically appropriate. Is that correct?

Dr. David Green: No. I'm responding to the question, that's all.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): But your answer to the question was that this is not a term that you use, because it's not helpful.

Dr. David Green: It's not a term that we use.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): So if I can understand you correctly—

Dr. David Green: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): —because we are trying to receive testimony on a very important piece of legislation, what you're recommending to the committee is that we follow Dr. Scudder's recommendations that the term residence is not acceptable and that we use habitat. And we're talking about protection and prohibitions against destroying.

Dr. David Green: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): It should be against habitat or critical habitat versus residence. Is that correct?

Dr. David Green: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Dr. Festa-Bianchet.

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: I would just like to add one thing. Maybe part of the problem here is between expressing an opinion that represents COSEWIC's viewpoint and expressing personal viewpoints. But I think if we express a personal viewpoint as a scientist in research and ecology, it is clear that habitat protection is the key to any kind of species recovery.

A lot of people criticize the approach of protecting the ecosystem by protecting species. I think something that we have to realize is that we can, up to some extent, define species legally. It's much more difficult to define a habitat. And I think the way we are going about it is identifying species without a race, but almost every time the problem is habitat loss. Therefore there cannot be species protection without habitat protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Again, Dr. Festa-Bianchet, would you agree that the provisions in the bill should be strengthened to say that habitat protection should be mandatory as opposed to discretionary?

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: I definitely would. I would also underline the point that residence of an animal in a scientific parlance—I wouldn't know what it means. I would know what it means for a woodchuck, but not for a duck.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Mr. Reed, I understand you have a point of order.

Mr. Julian Reed: Madam Chairman, are we still speaking to the point of order?

• 1015

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I believe that has been dealt with, unless someone wants to keep going at it.

Mr. Julian Reed: Okay. Carry on.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Did you want to keep going on it?

Mr. Julian Reed: Madam Chairman, I still want to make a point that witnesses are entitled to respond in any manner they desire. It is not in keeping with the good order of a committee to badger witnesses about how they answer questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes, Mr. Reed, thank you very much. I believe that's what I was trying to express, and other members have expressed that as well.

Are there any other questions from you, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm sure I'm out of time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): We put the clock on suspension.

Thank you very much.

Madam Redman, did you have any questions?

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have one, which I'll direct to Dr. Scudder, but I invite the other witnesses to comment if they want.

There has been much said about whether things are mandatory or discretionary. I realize you use those terms in specific applications throughout the bill. Could you comment on the fact that this bill is really predicated on goodwill, with Canadians, associations, and NGOs participating on a voluntary basis?

The fact that species at risk still exist in Canada right now is a testament to the fact that ranchers, landowners, Ducks Unlimited, and all kinds of good people have voluntarily been doing the kinds of things that support the recovery and protection of species at risk.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I agree that we need goodwill. I would say the goodwill from those groups you identified is doing much more to save the species than the government is. Take Ducks Unlimited—they've done a tremendous job. Why? Because they've saved habitat.

I think there's a tremendous amount of goodwill, and a lot is going on out there that's unrecorded. The stewardship program—the federal government is putting money in but it's being carried out by others, and it's very successful. Ranchers are onside. In fact, we're doing more on South Okanagan with stewardship than we are by protecting habitat in the regular way on government-owned land.

Even the first nations are helping. They have put a high value on endangered species. They own much of the land that's not being terribly disturbed, and they have put a high priority... They don't quite like operating in some of the ways the government requires, but individuals are out there all the time. They have a good knowledge of the endangered species on their land, and that's essential to the survival of those species. There's a lot of work going on in that other community, and nothing in this bill is going to help us or stop that.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So with respect to mandatory requirements—clearly there are two aspects of this bill: there is the carrot and there is the stick. We can learn things from other countries. We've had international representatives come to this committee. What we would really like to avoid is the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” syndrome, and landowners selling land with the guarantee that there are no endangered species there.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: There are certain individuals, one has to face it, with that attitude. But in the majority of cases they know what the score is, and we put a habitat atlas out in the South Okanagan, so landowners have an idea of what's on their land. We can give them a readout on what species are there. In fact, the zoning requirements require them not to disturb those species—not to move their buildings, not to destroy the rattlesnake den. We find that 99.99% of people are willing to do that.

In fact, in the public poll, about half the population is even willing to give up 30%, 40% or 50% of their land for endangered species. They don't want to go broke in the process. One could create a number of tax incentives, more than we have at present, to help them.

The trouble is, it's one thing to encourage the populists to do things, but when the government doesn't do anything itself in a mandatory manner, it's difficult to shame it into coming up with the final .01% obligation.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Dr. Scudder.

• 1020

To build on what Madam Redman has said, I think it's important to reflect on the good work that has been going on to save endangered species in this country. For example, there have been a number of recovery teams operating, set up with local people and independent scientists—as you pointed out in your brief, Dr. Scudder. But as you also pointed out, it's rather disconcerting that recovery teams for some of the bird populations in eastern Canada have been suddenly disbanded.

Dr. Montevecchi was chair of the harlequin duck recovery team since 1991. But as you pointed out in your materials, a unilateral decision was made by the Canada Wildlife Service, without consultation, and his recovery team was disbanded.

I myself happen to have some letters from Dr. Montevecchi, and I was going to raise this matter if you didn't. He spoke about his concern that the government and the environment minister should have access to independent scientific advice. When we have been unable to protect species and they become endangered, the importance of these recovery teams is crucial.

So there was this unilateral action to disband the recovery teams and set up a chair of the recovery team as a member of the Canada Wildlife Service. I wonder if you could comment on this and expand on why you have grave concerns.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: My main concern is, first, the unilateral action. My second concern is the assumption that all the best expertise is within the Canadian Wildlife Service. But it may not be the best chair.

I think the implication of the letter is that because this is now a legal operation, all the nuts and bolts have to be kept under the control of the Canadian Wildlife Service. It may be that the best recovery team, in my mind, doesn't have the Canadian Wildlife Service on it.

For example, a butterfly recovery team. We have several butterflies listed, but as far as I know, there is no expertise in the Canadian Wildlife Service on butterflies. It's the same thing with lichens. The action is one thing, the consequence is another.

I think if one treated the non-government people like that, they would say, “To hell with it”. Actually, they probably won't do that, because they're so concerned—they wouldn't be in there otherwise. This is all volunteer time. You don't get paid for doing this. In many cases you don't get your expenses paid for doing this. I'm on an ecosystem recovery team for the South Okanagan, and I pay for going to all the meetings. All the plane fares, all the hotel bills—I pay for them myself. I've never had a cent.

So I say we need everybody involved, because recovery is tough. It's really difficult to get that expertise, and you'd better make sure you have everybody onside, with the best science—whether it's in government or otherwise, and it's not always in government.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): The really sad thing about three of these disbanded teams, I understand, is that they were dealing with transborder species and American observers were involved. Now the whole team has been disbanded.

I think this does not really foster a tremendous amount of goodwill—not only with the members of the scientific community who volunteer, but also with our American neighbours. I suggest that this is one of the reasons why we have to move from discretionary to mandatory. Rather than relying on the possibility of goodwill, we have to know that species will be protected.

I have about a minute left. I just wanted to—

Mr. Bob Mills: I've been timing. It's five minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes, I know. All right, I'll defer to Mr. Mills, but I did have one minute left. I want to show goodwill and cooperation on the committee, so I'll come back and get you guys later.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to follow up on the same point. I don't quite understand who made the decision to disband those committees. Could you answer that first? I know you addressed it in your opening remarks, but I didn't catch it. Who made the decision, and why? What's the rationale from the people who made the decision?

• 1025

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: That planning was made by the Atlantic director of the Canadian Wildlife Service. I don't know if it was unilateral on his part. I don't know quite whether it's flowing down from head office, but the implication is that SARA is coming in. It has certain implications with respect to the legal requirements. Only we can meet those, because you people don't have any legal requirements. We are the government agency. We have the legal things to meet; therefore we have to head it all up. That's the flow of the argument in the letter.

It came straight out of the blue. As far as I know, it has not happened anywhere else in Canada. If it has, the scientific community hasn't been alerted for it. My committee has not been disbanded. So it's something that has happened just with respect to these three teams. I don't know whether there are any other teams in the Atlantic region that didn't get disbanded, but certainly those three did, and it has caused a tremendous stir in the scientific community. They're absolutely shocked that this should happen.

I should perhaps add that the Americans were in fact part of the recovery team, not observers, in this. So it really involves them as well because of the transborder situation. All three are transborder.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you see anything in the legislation that justifies that type of legal interpretation?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: No, it has come straight out of the blue.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Dr. Green, I see you shaking your head. You don't see anything in the legislation otherwise?

Dr. David Green: No.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, on a point of order, then, it seems to me that it behoves this committee to question the department in that type of decision. It's almost contemptuous of this committee if they're usurping or prejudging how this legislation is going to end up. I find it offensive that something like this has happened while we're still in the process of reviewing this legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): What would you propose in your point of order?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think the chair of the committee should be forwarding a letter to the minister—because it seems to me that it has come from further up—requesting an explanation and expressing our displeasure that this has happened at this period of time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I would like to point out, Mr. Comartin, that the minister will be appearing before this committee, so there's the possibility of speaking to the minister directly at that time about that. If the members of the committee would like to see something else done, other than that, I would entertain any ideas. Plus, because of the fact that I'm not the permanent chair of the committee, perhaps you would like to discuss this when—

Mr. Joe Comartin: When is Mr. Caccia back?

A voice: Next Monday.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Oh, good, I get to chair. Are we going to have points of order through the entire process this week?

You have to forgive me as a chair who's sitting in; I'm relying heavily on my clerk here.

Mr. Joe Comartin: When is Mr. Caccia back?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Caccia will be back next Monday.

What is the will of the committee?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think it's a reasonable question to ask the head of the Canadian Wildlife Service whether he anticipates that COSEWIC will operate differently, assuming the legislation passes, than it has traditionally. That issue has been raised, but that's just my view. I—

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: If I could add, this isn't COSEWIC; this is outside of COSEWIC. This is renewal.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Again I rely on your clerk and Mr. Knutson for rules of procedure, but could we not pass a motion requesting that a letter be sent from the chair to the Minister of the Environment asking that we be advised as to why this action was undertaken? Certainly, we can seek to hear more about it when he does come, but in the meantime, it does give him an opportunity to respond.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): We have to have a 24-hour notice period for a motion, unless there's unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for a motion?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, let's talk about it for 24 hours.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): That's fine. Let's talk it about tomorrow, then, instead of taking up the witnesses' time. Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, I think you've used up your three minutes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: A point of order shouldn't be...

I'm not going to challenge the chair again. You've had a tough enough time from us already.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Dr. Scudder, I'm glad you mentioned that 99.9% of landowners would cooperate. The big message I got this last couple of weeks was, tell us what we have there and we'd be more than happy to cooperate; and why do we need government legislation to tell us what to do, because we've already been doing that?

Also, of course, you recognized Ducks Unlimited and things like that. They're very common, certainly throughout western Canada, and are doing a great job.

• 1030

I'd like to come back to the question I asked—I'd like all the questions answered. You said that when the border stops, your concerns about a species stop—the species that wander across the border—but there are lots of them south of the border.

That's sort of like at the environmental assessment yesterday, when they told me that power plants are being built in Washington because California doesn't want to have the pollution. They're building them on the border, and the pollution will blow into Canada. The transmission lines will come through Canada because Washington State doesn't allow transmission lines to go over places where people live. But the fact that it's going down the main street of Abbotsford, where all kinds of people are, is just fine and doesn't matter, because, after all, it's happening in the States and we don't care what happens there. That's just about as stupid as saying if there are lots of species on the other side of the border. Could you explain that, please?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills, could we have two seconds here? Let's all regroup. We've been having a wonderful conversation this morning, and I would hope that we would continue in a very respectful way.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'm being very respectful.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills, I know this is what you intend, so let's remove the “s” word from the comment.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I would respond that the legislation requires only consideration of Canada. As scientists, we consider it no matter where it is.

Scientifically, many of those in Canada are at the edge of their range, but they are the most important populations for the species as a whole. The fact that they're collapsing down in the United States has nothing to do with what the United States is doing but is the nature of species behaviour with respect to adaptability.

If I could summarize, if a species has a range, the hard habitat, the critical one where they're going to have to be adapting all the time, is at the edge. In the centre, it's soft. So these are all the ones that are pushing up to the limits. They are the ones that are always in fact going to be the most adaptable. Therefore, under critical conditions, they're the ones that survive. Hence, ours are the ones that are the most important.

Mr. Bob Mills: My question earlier was to Dr. Green. If he said that COSEWIC wouldn't look at that—

Dr. David Green: No, don't overinterpret what I had to say.

When we do a designation, we are looking only at Canadian populations. In order to assess Canadian populations, we look at whatever happens to those populations—and I did say we look to see if there is some rescue from across the border. Of course we take a look to see if there are pollutants or poachers coming from across the border, or if they move over there, if there are better pastures across the border. We look to see everything that affects these animals and plants, and then we determine the status of the ones that are here.

We take into consideration a whole universe of things that affect them, but we only assess the status not of the species as a whole in the world, but of the species here in this country. So we do take those things into consideration.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Mills has a burning, clear, short question, and I'm sure the committee will all agree to give him an extra minute on his time.

Mr. Bob Mills: Say species A is plentiful in the U.S. and some of them have wandered into Canada. There are very few of them in Canada. Are they going to appear on the COSEWIC list?

Dr. David Green: If those species come in and they are steadily, readily cropped up from across the border... If they only come in here because they migrate across the border once a year, they're not really established in Canada and they probably would not appear on the list.

If they are resident here, if this is a lonely outpost of that species within the country, if they don't communicate with their brethren across the border, if animals do not cross back and forth and they're not cropped up, if this is the sole fort on the frontier of that species' range, they would be on the list.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): So you would suggest, then, that this is the reason we have to take a look at biologically, geographically distinct.

Dr. David Green: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: If I could just add, every assessment of species has a ranking with respect to the world, the country, and all the rest of it. There is a multiple ranking system that everybody knows.

Secondly, many of the species that are at risk in Canada are also at risk in the States. If they are common down there and rare up here, that's not a usual situation. For example, the burrowing owl is at risk in Canada. It's also at risk down there.

• 1035

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Dr. Scudder.

Monsieur Bigras, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question concerns the procedure followed by COSEWIC to draw up the list. For the purposes of species identification and designation, Quebec looks to an advisory committee composed of scientists. Quebec has had legislation on the books since 1989. Naturally, it also has representatives serving on COSEWIC. All committee members work together.

I'd like to know how you go about drawing up the list working from the recommendations. For instance, does one province's recommendation carry the same weight as that of a scientist serving on the committee? How are decisions made and what relative weight does each member carry? I'm not sure whether you understand my question. For example, what kind of weight does a province carry compared to a scientist who is a member of COSEWIC?

Mr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: Everyone is equal. COSEWIC bases its decisions on reports that everyone sees and is supposed to read prior to meetings. A total of 28 persons have the right to vote within COSEWIC and each vote carries exactly the same weight.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Therefore, you're saying that each province carries the same weight as a scientist and that a scientist is equal to a province.

Mr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: Yes, but you have to remember that the COSEWIC representative from Quebec is not there to represent Quebec, but rather to contribute his scientific expertise to the process. There are no provincial representatives per se. It's very important to understand how COSEWIC operates. Members are not on the committee to safeguard the rights of a particular province or non-governmental organization. Everyone is there to contribute his or her expertise.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What you're saying then is that the provinces do not sit per se on COSEWIC.

Mr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: There is someone from each province on COSEWIC, but the role of Saskatchewan's representative is not to champion's that province's cause. This individual must bring the perspective of a Saskatchewan resident to COSEWIC.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What I'm really asking is whether the member of COSEWIC in fact represents his or her province on the committee. You're telling me that Quebec's representative contributes his scientific knowledge.

Mr. David Green: Someone from Quebec serves on COSEWIC, but I wouldn't say that he represents Quebec on the committee.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I see.

I have one final brief question. I don't think I'm going too far, as the Chair's comments were quite expansive. Is Quebec's member on the committee appointed by the Quebec government?

Mr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: Yes.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: And that person carries as much weight as anyone else on this 28-member committee?

Mr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: Yes.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Fine then.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

Dr. Scudder, some of the witnesses who have come before our committee have conveyed the United States legislation as some kind of spectre here—a spectre that we don't want to emulate in Canada. Do you see it that way?

Second, to get it in, in case I get caught, in your view, what are the strengths of the American legislation? In your view, are there some that we ought to emulate? On the reverse side, are there weaknesses there that we should be careful not to copy?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I think the strength is that they have habitat protection as a requirement. I think our listing scheme is better than theirs. Theirs is more of a political one and ours is I think much more run by scientists.

I think the problem is in the heavy-handed way they administrate, which we wouldn't want to go through.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: How would we avoid that?

• 1040

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I think there is much more public involvement, for example, with our renewal program. We get everybody involved—stakeholders and all the rest of it—whereas they tend to come down and rule from above much more. The federal government has a much stronger hand in the States than in fact ours has in those operations. For example, in the case of the spotted owl, that was a federal ruling that was imposed on everything else. In Canada there would be much more discussion and involvement of stakeholders, and that's a better approach. But underlying theirs is the realization that you don't save species without habitat, and that's their strength.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's their strength. Then our propensity to get into a wide discussion with the stakeholders, bring them together, and combine that with the volunteer efforts, which is more the Canadian way, is something this bill could enhance.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Yes, that's very good. But the point is that nowhere in this bill does it say that habitat protection is absolutely essential—is mandatory. That is what's needed, and then I think we would have a very strong bill—provided we get the species on the list, of course.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Madam Carroll.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Dr. Green, I just want to return to Mr. Mills' point. By way of example, if there's a population of grizzly bears—and I don't know if this is the case—in northern Montana that the Americans want to protect, so they list it and they go through all their legal hoops, but these grizzly bears from time to time wander into southern Alberta, and because we have lots of them in Alberta we don't have any prohibition against shooting these grizzly bears that wander up through northern Manitoba... Does that make sense to you?

Dr. David Green: Well, it's clearly a case where a recovery plan for the United States population has to be made in conjunction with folks up in Canada. The Americans are concerned about this. It's a cross-border population. No, it doesn't make sense that this population of bears can come up and get shot.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are we doing that?

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: Specifically in southern Alberta, yes, there's a hunting season for grizzlies.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we would take into—

Dr. David Green: That's a question where a recovery plan for the American populations must be made... Because the nature of the beast is to roam very widely, you have to take that into consideration and, as is the great Canadian way of doing things, discuss it—bring in people around the table from both sides of the border to discuss what to do with those bears. I think this is a separate issue from the status of grizzly bears generally in Canada, which is not at risk.

If by our actions we endanger those bears in the United States, that's something that should be dealt with by us and the United States.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So my understanding is that there is no mechanism in our federal law to protect the bears. The only remedy is that presumably the State of Montana could go to the Province of Alberta and ask them to eliminate their hunting season on grizzly bears.

Dr. David Green: But what we have to say on the COSEWIC list is for the country as a whole. There is nothing to preclude Alberta from declaring its southern population of grizzly bears to be in trouble, or B.C. likewise from declaring that its southeast population of grizzly bears are in trouble and doing something about that.

The sum total of all the species—ideally—on the provincial lists would be greater than the national list, because we have the same phenomena between provinces. They may be common in one province, rare in another province. That province with the rare population may list it provincially and put some recovery plans into place, whereas in the country as a whole the added species may not be at risk.

For example, I've been involved with western chorus frogs—I do frogs. There is a recovery plan in place in Quebec. They are not doing very well in Quebec. Yet they are fine, quite common still in Ontario. At the COSEWIC level they are likely to be not at risk, yet Quebec is concerned about them and there are recovery plans in Quebec.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just want to finish up that point about the reassessment of the list. Do you have a timeframe when the reassessment will be completed?

• 1045

Dr. David Green: We'd like to get them done within the next year or so. I think we're well on track with the endangered and threatened. The vast majority have been looked at again. There may be some tough cases where there is considerably more information that has been made available lately. That may take a while. New reports may have to be written for some species. But I think we will get most of the special-concern species done within the year.

Mr. Joe Comartin: There's no reason, then, if I understood your submission, for the legislation not to include the list in the schedule—whatever stage it's at at that point. We can just go ahead and do that from your perspective?

Dr. David Green: There's no reason to.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Even if you haven't finally finished the reassessment?

Dr. David Green: What we will likely find will be that the status will remain the same or... I think COSEWIC, on the whole, has been fairly conservative with past years and we've found that more have been uplisted than downlisted during this process. So at the very least, this will be a rather conservative list—probably—in comparison to what will emerge eventually.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do I have any more time?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes, you do.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Dr. Scudder, you made this point about the importance of—and I didn't follow it, and I'm sorry, but if you could expand on it—the loss of one species, the overall impact it has on the rest. Could you just expand on that? I didn't understand the point you were trying to make.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Yes. It's partly what flows from the large number of species. In a community with lots of species, you probably have a number of species all doing the same thing at the same time. If there are a lot there doing it, you can remove one of them and it doesn't collapse. But if you have a species-poor ecosystem, which is typical of the northern temperate ecosystems, you have probably one or two, rather than twelve somewhere else. Take one out and the impact is greater should you remove that one in the species-poor versus the species-rich system. So compared with species in the tropics, you take one out of here and you're going to get really big repercussions.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Such as?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Well, for example, in the acid lakes, Dr. Schindler was able to show that acid knocked out a whole trophic level in the experimental lakes, and the whole system collapsed by just simply knocking out one essential part of the food chain, because there were only one or two species doing that job there.

Dr. David Green: What I'd add to that is we often are concerned with the top level in these food chains—the big predators who reign quietly and have immediate, obvious impacts on environments to us. But—especially in these lakes—what happened is that the top predators, the top fish, were not removed. They were fine. What happened was the bottom of the food web was removed. Then it can't be supported at all, everything goes. You take out the corner block of the building and it'll fall down.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Yes. This is the basis of my submission about the ecological pyramid, to try to get that notion across.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Dr. Scudder.

Thank you, Dr. Green.

That ecological pyramid will be translated. I don't think they'll have to do too much about the geometry of the triangle, in terms of translating that. It's common in French and English. However, the words inside the triangle will be translated and submitted, and it will be very helpful to members.

Mr. Mills has a short question.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'm still concerned about the potential of politics within science to get grant money. But you raised an interesting question about bears. Dr. Stephen Herrero is a world-renowned expert on bears. I have known him for a lot of years and have been to many of his lectures and so on. You implied, Dr. Green, that grizzly bears are endangered. In B.C. particularly, there would be a lot of disagreement, including from the Government of B.C. In Alberta, I think we recognize that we need to really limit our harvest, and I believe that is done. I wonder if Dr. Herrero is on COSEWIC—I don't know if he is or isn't—and I wonder why, if you're going to be talking about bears as you just did, he wouldn't be sitting as an expert on the subject.

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: We have taxonomically oriented subcommittees within COSEWIC. One looks after mammals. I happen to be in charge of the subcommittee that looks after terrestrial mammals. I'm having a report written on the grizzly bear specifically now. When I choose an author of a report, I will look, if possible, for somebody who has not staked out a lot of territory on that particular animal. I'll look for someone who has expertise on that animal, but if I can, I will avoid somebody whose livelihood, prestige, or scientific career depends on that animal, precisely to avoid the kinds of conflict of interest you mentioned.

• 1050

When the report is being written, the author of the report, who is now contracted by COSEWIC to write the report, will obviously get in touch with people doing research on grizzly bears. Steve Herrero was consulted during the writing of the grizzly report, and so have several of his graduate students and associates. But I would not necessarily ask somebody like that to actually write the report.

Mr. Bob Mills: So it comes back to you, Dr. Green. When you mention that we should be putting some pressure on... if those, what was it Montana—I guess Gar has left—grizzly bears are endangered, you more or less implied they shouldn't then be being shot in Alberta. I don't know if they are or aren't being shot in Alberta. Is that what you said?

Dr. David Green: I would rather see grizzly bears not being shot in any place, if it were up to me. This is a management and recovery question. It's not a question of assigning a status to these bears at this point, which is what you've just asked us about.

The status of the bear in Canada is what it is. What you do about it is that other separate question. What people do about it is make a recovery team. If there are bears someplace else, in another jurisdiction that is of concern, a recovery team or plan is put in place. If it crosses the border, there should be some consultation across the border. That's part of the solution to that particular problem.

But regarding what the status is of that animal in Canada—it is what it is, period.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Could I just interject? In British Columbia, grizzly bears are not on any list, but certain populations of them are endangered. The province recognizes those endangered populations and doesn't allow hunting of them.

Similarly with this Montana Canadian one, there is an independent effort with the Y2Y program to try to keep a corridor so there is movement between Yellowstone and the Yukon for grizzly bears. So there are independent efforts that are trying to address some of the issues with respect to the way grizzly bears behave, and they've always behaved that way irrespective of the border.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Dr. Green.

Dr. David Green: One last point is that COSEWIC tries to encapsulate the standards of the species it deals with as accurately as it can. If there's a case where a broad-stamp approach—this whole species in Canada is this or is that—is not going to work, it doesn't describe it in sufficient detail, if there is a part of the range that is isolated, distinctive, and of a different status, we would consider that to be also a designatable unit, and we would give it a designation to capture that status as well.

So sometimes we will have a species that will have a different status in different parts of the country in order to report the status of that species more accurately.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Dr. Green.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Dr. Scudder, you've raised a really good issue, and I haven't seen the pyramid, but I look forward with anticipation to seeing it. Clearly there are events and habitats, and all species are evolving, which is a point that's been made over and over again, and you've raised it again today. One of the strengths of this bill from the government's point of view is the fact that we believe it will work on the ground.

I'd be interested to hear what criteria you would see as measuring how successful this bill will be. There's a five-year review built into this as well as a round table about 18 months into it. In your view, given that things will continue to unfold and that some species expire for reasons, and they could be impacts that are not even within Canadian boundaries, what criteria would you use to measure the success of whatever this bill is able to have an impact on?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: In general, the sort of criteria we would be looking for is for species to be downlisted, that is recovery plans being successful, getting them off the list altogether. But five years is the wrong timeframe.

• 1055

I think the bill will, over time, with respect... the list is going to get longer. There's a big backlog. I don't know how many species there are that we haven't yet assessed because the knowledge isn't out there. The expertise isn't out there. The timeframe hasn't been there.

But I think anybody who thinks you're going to recover these species or get them downlisted in five years is out of their mind. So I don't know what the criteria are that the government or the Canadian Wildlife Service is thinking of as the ones to assess in five years.

I think it will be largely the legal side that will assess whether it's operating. It won't be biologic. It will be a legal assessment as to what problems we've had; how many court cases, or whatever you will, might be there. It won't be biology, in the sense of a downlisting. But that will be the criteria the scientists will use as to whether we're actually doing anything effectively.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Dr. Green, would you like to comment?

Dr. David Green: COSEWIC reassesses every species on its list. We go back and have an update report done every 10 years, on average. Sometimes, if a species looks like it's doing something rather more rapidly, we will ask for a report to be done in five years or even fewer.

So there will come a time when COSEWIC will be doing mostly update reports. I hope that time comes. It means we will have done a pretty good job of assessing many things.

For some of the groups, such as mammals, amphibians, and birds, we are virtually at the time now that we're doing updates, because we have got to those species that need to be done. For fish, invertebrates, and many plants, there are hundreds and hundreds of species we have not done yet.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Madam Redman.

The chair has a couple of questions, but before we do that—we may start to lose people, because it's getting close to 11 o'clock—Mr. Mills has just put forward a request. Thankfully, I will not be chairing tomorrow. Mr. Mills, as the opposition vice-chair, will be chairing, so in that capacity he's asking for a request.

Mr. Bob Mills: My only question was that the meeting with Prince Charles is scheduled for 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Unfortunately, it's not on the Hill; it's at the museum. To have our committee start at 3:30 p.m. will of course be very difficult—none of us would be able to attend.

My request was to rearrange the witnesses we have tomorrow to one hour later, if that's possible. I would need unanimous agreement to do that, I understand. That's the question.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Is it agreeable to delay to 4:30 p.m.? Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Mills.

We'll contact the witnesses to make sure that will work with their particular schedules.

I wanted to point out that Dr. Scudder identified something that is very important, not only about the legislation, but about the process of protecting and recovering endangered species. They are indeed two separate processes.

Sometimes I hear people speaking as if the socioeconomic decisions, which are part of the recovery process, are somehow mingled with the decision for listing, which is purely a scientific process. I think, as Dr. Green has ably pointed out, it's important that scientists make the scientific decisions and politicians make the socioeconomic decisions. So I think this is clearly a very important point.

I would also like to ask Dr. Scudder if he could tell us why in his brief he said the legislation does not allow for the scientifically established list to become the legal list. You said you think this is unacceptable.

Your comments seem to differ from Dr. Green's. Dr. Green is worried that scientists will be subjected to intensive lobby efforts. I'm wondering why you think that scientists, under what you've suggested, would not be subjected to lobbying efforts, or whether you care about that.

• 1100

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: No, there was a second point in mind. I think the scientific list should become the legal list. But there was also the provision for the government to actually remove some from the list providing they give reasons. It could be a political reason or because they have to talk to first nations, any number of things. But we need to have right up front the reason, other than science, not to leave them there.

I don't think we differ in any major way in what we are saying. My feeling is that if they are left off the list for some political reason at the beginning, what flows from that is that they have no protection whatsoever. Even if it's as scarce as hen's teeth, or whatever the word is, you can go out and do whatever you like with regard to the species and its habitat. That's not acceptable.

So there have to be really strong reasons you don't accept it, and let's put them out. If it's political, let us know that it's political. If it's socioeconomic or there's some legal tie-up with regard to some agreements and treaties with the first nations in the Northwest Territories, that's fine. We don't expect the committee to know that. But let's have that put out there. We don't want games being played without it all being transparent and knowing exactly what the score is, because either they're rare and at risk or they're not.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Do you feel that scientists would be subjected to intensive lobbying efforts?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Some is going on already. If there was the opportunity for those changes to be made later in the political arena... I just said in a limited timeframe. I think Dr. Green said 60 days. It could be any period, as long as we know what's going on.

There are always certain local concerns, but COSEWIC operates as a group of scientists making a scientific decision. It has great respect and a tremendous reputation. We don't want to damage that at all. We think that what I was suggesting wouldn't upset them at all. In fact, all the scientists I've talked to would like the proposal.

Don't make them so that they are etched in stone. Put them in so that the act doesn't come in. The act can come in now with nothing protected, because there is really nothing legally put on the list. Put them on so that they are already there. You gain some ground. Then allow them to be removed. It may be that 60 days is too short. I don't know. The load may be too big in the first instance to actually handle that. I think we owe it to the ecosystem we depend upon to make sure it's there in the best way we can make it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): We need to separate the scientific from the political decisions. I think that's very important.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I have a question for Dr. Green. In your brief you talked about—I don't know if it's actually written in your brief—the fact that prospective members of COSEWIC must have the appropriate credentials. I'm wondering what are the appropriate credentials and who makes the decision about whether the individual's credentials are acceptable for COSEWIC membership.

Dr. David Green: We have a list of credentials in the back of our little manual. It's now a fairly fat manual. We are looking for people who have demonstrated knowledge and expertise in the form of recognized higher degrees or publications, or in terms of people who represent the aboriginal knowledge committee, not necessarily higher degrees but people who are recognized experts in their fields. They are looked at by COSEWIC to see if this minimum standard is there.

What we really want—and we went through this exercise last year with the three independent members—is to find the best people we can who have the broadest range of knowledge and expertise in the species in the country.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): What about the current bill? Would the current bill ensure that the membership of COSEWIC has the appropriate credentials?

Dr. David Green: I think that is not specific in the bill. We have it in our procedures. It doesn't say that in the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): The previous bill, Bill C-65, was amended when it came out of committee. I don't have that bill in front of me, but I believe there was a reference that recommendations would come from the Royal Society of Canada. Dr. Scudder, Dr. Green, Dr. Festa-Bianchet, I'm just wondering if you think that would be an appropriate amendment for this bill to ensure that people have the appropriate credentials.

• 1105

Dr. David Green: I think we can look to groups such as the Royal Society for recruits. The Royal Society is a fine bunch of scientists and very eminent people, but do we want to hand the membership of COSEWIC over to any particular group of people or organization? I think a consultation with the Royal Society would be right.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): That's what I had said, that it was on recommendation.

Dr. Scudder, what's your opinion?

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: I agree. I think these are basic. The recommendation that was contained in the submission we had from Stewart Elgie was that the committee should have scientists, and there were some recommendations as to what areas they should have the expertise in. There are no requirements laid down in this bill as to how it should be there. They should have respectability. I think the suggestion was that a list that was drawn up by some group—and every society has the opportunity to make nominations—should be vetted by an independent body such as the Royal Society as to whether these do meet the criteria. I think the other suggestion from Stewart Elgie was that the majority of the committee should in fact be non-government. Now, whether that was contained in there, I don't know, and one can discuss that. Certainly, the present bill doesn't have the details that were in Bill C-65, and it doesn't contain the suggestions that previously came out of this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): And in light of what has happened with the recovery team?

Mr. Geoffrey Scudder: It's independent.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I know that it's a separate issue, but here is a situation where we've seen a unilateral change in the composition of recovery teams where there has been no discussion or consultation and it's unclear as to the motivation for this change. This is a fact. This is something that has happened now. While the recovery team process is a separate process from COSEWIC identification and listing of endangered species and species at risk, I think it makes us wonder what might possibly happen if there aren't safeguards in the legislation.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: The committee is appointed by the minister or cabinet, but we are concerned that in fact not become political. We just want to make sure that an appointment to COSEWIC is not a political appointment and that one doesn't have too much of that going on in there. I'd say as long as it has a transparency and respectability in the scientific community, and you need to know that. Who's going to tell you it has a respectable status? The Royal Society is as good as anything because it's not in any one area. Don't ask them for the list, though.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): No.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder: Just use them as a check. Then it gains that credibility, which is good for the government.

Dr. David Green: I see the ministerial appointment in a similar vein. The minister is not necessarily the chooser—I hope the minister is not the chooser—but that gives legitimacy to the members of the committee and the authority they have under this appointment, and they are able to operate now in this new committee. That should apply to members and their alternates as well. Anybody who has the ability to raise a hand and vote around the table must have the authority to do so and have the credentials. We've been very aware of that. That's why we have made sure that we have a minimum set of credentials, and we won't accept people who don't fulfil those credentials.

Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet: I have to agree. So far COSEWIC has essentially been looking after its own process of recruitment. We have our criteria for credentials. But we would be extremely concerned about an attempt to impose upon us who can be a member because the whole issue of the independence and credibility of the committee would be involved. With regard to the legislation, if the current self-sustained process that COSEWIC has with its own criteria was interfered with, that obviously would be of great concern to us.

Just underlining what Dr. Green was saying, another concern we have related to the ministerial appointment is that there are cases where we are concerned not only about political interference but also about getting sued. So we'd like some kind of protection, because some of the things we do may eventually affect people's ability to make monetary gains or whatever. There have already been cases where we wondered about our legal position.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes, and I've noted that recommendation you've made.

I think it's important for the credibility of the government to ensure the independence and the credibility and the appropriate credentials of the scientists and others who may not be scientists in a traditional way of thinking but are indeed scientists in their own communities. That should be clear.

• 1110

To the witnesses, thank you very much. Also, I want to thank the witnesses and the members for their patience.

If there are no other questions, we will adjourn this rather dynamic and raucous committee meeting.