ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

• 1636

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We have a vote later on this afternoon, so we will try to hear the witnesses as quickly and efficiently as we can. Hopefully, we can get that done prior to the vote. We're not sure of the time yet, but it could possibly be around 5:45 or 6 o'clock. I will keep that in mind.

For the committee members, we have a motion, but we'll deal with it after the vote if in fact we don't get to it prior to that.

I would like to welcome the witnesses. I'm the vice-chair of the committee. My name is Bob Mills.

I would ask that you give us a brief presentation, if that's okay with you, and then the members will ask you questions. I'm not sure of the order. We can go in the order listed on the agenda, unless you have discussed among yourselves a different order. If not, we'd ask Mr. Beck to go first.

Mr. Gregor Beck (Director of Conservation and Science, Federation of Ontario Naturalists): Thank you very much.

On behalf of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, or FON, I am very pleased to be here to make this submission on behalf of our organization, and I thank the committee for this opportunity.

The FON works to protect and restore nature in Ontario, championing woodlands, wetlands, and wildlife and protecting habitat through our own system of nature reserves. We are a science-based organization representing 15,000 members and over 110 member groups across Ontario.

My position is as director of conservation and science for the federation. I have a background in research, community-based conservation, and education, having worked on projects in Ontario and across the country.

When we met beforehand, it was suggested that since I am the first speaker, perhaps I should quickly try to explain what a naturalist is. There's no one definition because it is a diverse group, but overall we do share an appreciation of the environment and an appreciation of nature for its own sake. It is a diverse community that includes people who are purely into observing wildlife, and some of our members fish or hunt. So it's a broad constituency. Some like myself have a background in science and biology. Others may be self-taught. Most are involved in some hands-on or outdoor aspect of nature appreciation, and all tend to share an appreciation of ecosystems as a whole.

I should add that naturalists shouldn't be confused with naturists, as we sometimes are, which is a group that also enjoys the out of doors but sometimes in a more exposed fashion.

First, I would like to express the support of our organization for a federal Species at Risk Act. We're very pleased to see that this bill was introduced early in the new session of Parliament. We believe that Canada does need a fair, strong, and effective act to complement existing provincial legislation or to help provide a safety mechanism where those measures are not strong enough. Canada does have a moral and legal responsibility for biodiversity nationally and internationally, so this bill is a really important first step. We're delighted that it was brought forward.

• 1640

Central to an effective Species at Risk Act is fostering sound stewardship and building good relations. Stewardship and education are essential building blocks of that, and there are very good measures in the bill in that regard.

Also central to protecting species is protecting ecosystems and the habitat of endangered species. Throughout the bill, wherever possible, we would encourage improvements to its wording so that there are stronger measures for habitat protection.

Stewardship, education, goodwill, and building bridges with landowners are central to protecting the habitat and the species. But sometimes stewardship and education fail, so there is a need for measures for enforcement. Where those are necessary, it is important that they be done fairly, and if there is compensation for landowners, that this be developed effectively as well.

Overall we'd like to see three major improvements to the bill and then see it passed: stronger habitat protection, particularly in areas of federal jurisdiction where the government can show leadership; a fair system for enforcement and compensation; and a sound and science-based system for listing species and regulating them under the act, a point I will speak to later on.

Protecting wildlife means protecting its habitat. I would certainly encourage that the definition of critical habitat be examined very closely. In Ontario we have an act to protect endangered species, which prohibits the killing or harming of the wildlife. It also mentions habitat. But it's very loose, and it is not effectively applied. So this is an opportunity for the federal act to show leadership in habitat protection.

I could cite a specific example in Ontario where currently one of the core nesting areas of the endangered loggerhead shrike is threatened with quarry proposals. Although we have an Endangered Species Act and aspects of a Planning Act that have wording that would suggest the habitat and the species be protected, it's currently not working effectively. We have an example in the Carden plain area east of Lake Simcoe, where the critical nesting habitat for seven of Ontario's last 36 pairs of loggerhead shrike is very much threatened by a particular quarry proposal.

I just cite that as an example of the need to define habitat clearly, critical habitat in particular. When all else fails with provincial legislation, some sort of federal system that captures and protects things is very important.

The other major point I would like to mention is with regard to listing. Obviously, we have a system in place to identify species at risk through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. This is important. We would suggest that when the act comes forward, the COSEWIC list that currently exists should be the default list. Anything currently identified by COSEWIC should automatically be covered under the new act when it is passed.

Ideally, we would love to see an independent, science-based listing process prevail, following the example of Nova Scotia.

To be realistic, though, we do understand that there are instances under the bill where governments feel uncomfortable with a science panel making that listing specifically for endangered and threatened species. Therefore, I'd like to propose a compromise suggestion that lets the science body make the proposal, and then if cabinet has concerns over a particular species, they would be required to review and evaluate it, and they could veto it. So we recommend that the bill be amended so that the species identified by the science panel becomes the default list of species. Should cabinet determine that some of the species identified should not be protected, the onus would be on the cabinet to veto the recommendation and remove that species. For our members to find that agreeable, that would have to be justified by cabinet through an open and public process within a defined timeframe of perhaps 90 days.

In Ontario we are particularly sensitive to the problems associated with a completely political listing, because that is the process we currently have for our Endangered Species Act, and we've seen a lot of pitfalls associated with that. Sometimes there is a certain lethargy on the part of government to list the species. Sometimes there's a lack of resources available.

• 1645

Currently we have 26 species in Ontario regulated under our provincial Endangered Species Act, and 18 of these are COSEWIC-identified endangered species. So 18 COSEWIC-identified species are protected in Ontario. COSEWIC, however, has flagged 50 species in Ontario as endangered. There are an additional 30 species that are identified as threatened in Ontario. So we have currently a big deficit or shortfall in the number of species that are listed and regulated under our provincial Endangered Species Act. That just highlights the fact that where cabinet solely has that responsibility, we sometimes see a big lag in getting species protected under that act.

In Ontario also I can say that virtually all of our threatened and endangered species are at risk because of habitat loss, emphasizing the importance of protecting habitat, and not narrowly defined habitat such as a nesting tree or a small doughnut around a tree that contains a nest of a loggerhead shrike, but more broadly for areas that are critical for breeding, migration, or other times during the life cycle of the species.

When we list a species and get it regulated under an act, it's important for a number of reasons. It encourages stewardship, it promotes opportunities for education, and it also triggers the recovery planning process. If those measures fail to protect the species in its habitat, it provides an opportunity for penalties if individuals openly and flagrantly harm wildlife or habitat.

That is something on which I know there has been considerable concern on the part of landowners, but since these are very rare species, it is something that is seldom used. It is the stick when the carrot is preferred most times. It also allows an opportunity, when there is a species listed, for compensation for affected landowners.

In closing, I encourage the committee to recommend modest improvements to the bill in areas of habitat protection and in areas of federal jurisdiction, to consider compensation and a fair system for enforcement, and lastly, a sound and scientific listing system.

As one small final point, I find the name of the bill currently a bit misleading where it suggests “wildlife species at risk”. Most people, certainly in our membership, would consider “wildlife” as animals solely, rather than more broad species at risk, which encompasses plants and other organisms. It is defined broadly in the act, but I think most people would have a better understanding if it were simply “species at risk”.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you very much, Mr. Beck.

Ms. Murray.

Ms. Anne Murray (President, Federation of British Columbia Naturalists): Good afternoon. Thank you very much for inviting me here to speak today. It's my first time on Parliament Hill, so it's very exciting.

I'm representing the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists, which was founded in 1969. We have 50 member clubs all around British Columbia, with a total membership of about 5,300. Our motto is “to know nature and to keep it worth knowing.”

Our members have long been interested in provincial and federal legislation for endangered species. We were a founding member of the B.C. Endangered Species Coalition, who I think may have already spoken to you.

My presentation will focus on three key points today, though the written presentation covers more issues than that. I'll just keep to three points: the need for legislation, why we as naturalists feel that it's very important to have legislation; the strength and weaknesses of Bill C-5; and an example from British Columbia of an endangered animal that will be affected by the bill.

As naturalists, we recognize the dynamic characteristics of natural ecosystems. Things are always changing. There are many forces determining the abundance and distribution of plants and animals. So it's a difficult thing to always predict exactly how we can protect species, because the circumstances are constantly changing. But one limiting factor always seems to come through, and that's the availability of habitat. Rare species particularly have very particular habitat requirements; that's why they're rare. If they could be adaptable, they would be found in many more places.

• 1650

British Columbia has the greatest variety of wild animals and plants in the whole of Canada, what we call biodiversity. This biodiversity is something to be recognized, cherished, and protected. To do that, we can't just protect the creatures; we must also protect the habitats on which they depend.

The federation strongly supports the need for this federal legislation. We know a lot can be achieved by education and cooperation, but only clear legal consequences will suffice to prevent species disappearing altogether. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, for example, have been spent trying to save the Vancouver Island marmot, but all the time its mountain homeland is being logged. As a result, the Vancouver Island marmot decreases in numbers every year. It looks very much as if it's headed toward extinction.

British Columbia is one of six provinces without provincial endangered species legislation. It has the B.C. Wildlife Act and the Forest Practices Code, but neither of these has been sufficient to prevent the marmot from heading toward extinction, because they fail to protect the habitat. So what the federation is looking for in a federal endangered species law is strong, effective legislation that will secure habitat.

There are several aspects of this new bill that are promising. The preamble has some excellent language. It recognizes the importance of community knowledge, traditional knowledge of aboriginal people, and the stewardship and conservation activities of all Canadians. It's seeking transparency, and most excitingly, there is an opportunity there, in clause 43, for adopting a multi-species or ecosystem approach.

However, there are some deficiencies in the bill about which we have some concerns. The preamble uses great language, but in the body of the bill, where it would be legally binding, the language is much weaker. Many species will not be afforded protection because they don't live on federal land, and they're not covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and they're not aquatic.

I'd like to give you a specific example in British Columbia of an endangered ecosystem and an endangered species. I'm going to look at the American badger, but the B.C. subspecies of that rather unfortunately named species. Let's just call it the badger. It lives in the dry grassland ecosystems of the south Okanagan and lower Similkameen valleys. These valleys are quite unique. No other area of similar size in Canada has such a diversity of species. The valleys total 159,000 hectares, yet they have 16% of vascular plant species, 19% of amphibian species, 24% of reptiles, 47% of birds, and 36% of mammals. If we look at B.C., they have 73% of the reptile species and 62% of the bird species. This is just in two small valleys in the south Okanagan, a very crucial area. It has come under extreme pressure from habitat development for urban and agricultural purposes. Many of the COSEWIC-listed species and more than half of red- and blue-listed species for the province occur in these valleys.

The badger has its range here and also elsewhere in grasslands in B.C., but the numbers are small and they're falling. It's an attractive furred animal. I wanted to bring a stuffed one, but I brought you a picture instead, in case you haven't met the badger before. It has a striped face and a powerful, heavy body shaped for digging, and it's about this big.

Historically it was persecuted as a nuisance animal. It was believed that badger burrows would cause accidents to the livestock. So until very recently, it was okay for it to be killed on private property if it was seen to be causing a hazard to livestock. It was also trapped for its fur and poisoned during rodent controls.

Badgers are part of the south Okanagan ecosystem, and they're closely networked with all the other animals in the ecosystem. It feeds on ground squirrels, marmots, mice, voles, small birds, and insects. These creatures in turn feed on seeds, grains, roots, tubers, bird eggs, and invertebrates. They're all part of a food web there.

• 1655

The once rolling acres of dry grasslands and open pine forests in the Okanagan have been converted to housing and agriculture, and the badger population is declining. It's at risk because the amount of suitable habitat is small and has been adversely affected by human activity.

This small population is a very important population because it's at the northern limit of its range. Recent studies have shown that edge populations are actually more important than central core populations in terms of keeping species from disappearing altogether. There have been some very interesting studies done on that.

This is a very important population. It digs holes in the soil, and the holes are used by other species. The holes were used by the burrowing owl until the burrowing owl became extirpated in the south Okanagan just in the last few years. In fact, since I gave my last talk to this committee, that species seems to have gone. There's also refuge there for such animals as snakes and rabbits. And by breaking up the ground, the badger provides an opportunity for plants to take root, and the plants provide seeds and grains that feed other animals. So it's all wrapped up together in a form of network or web of life, the dynamics of which we don't fully understand.

The point is that if we lose the badger, we risk losing the whole diversity. We risk losing the whole ecosystem. It won't survive naturally in the wild unless all of that ecosystem—all the plants, insects, soil, and animals that comprise it—is protected. That means habitat, because that's what we're thinking of when we say habitat—that whole vegetation and soil environment.

Good stewardship is not enough on its own. We have some excellent stewards of the land in B.C. We have ranchers coming on side. We have dozens of naturalists out there working. We do need a legal consequence for the ultimate deterrence.

The badger population in B.C. has recently been upgraded to endangered under COSEWIC and it has been red-listed in B.C., so this is now crucial. Unfortunately, under Bill C-5 it's only going to be protected on federal lands, but there are not a lot of federal lands in the south Okanagan. First nations lands are the only ones, really. We don't have any other ones. It's obviously not aquatic, and it's not covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. So with the limited application of this bill, it doesn't look as if the badger's habitat is going to be sufficiently protected.

Furthermore, badgers live both south and north of the Canada-U.S. border. We can't tell in that grassland habitat where the border is, so it's a transboundary species. Transboundary species are not protected, even though they come under federal jurisdiction; they're not in the bill as being clearly protected.

The ecosystem or multi-species approach in subclause 41(3) could be strengthened here. That would be a good approach. In that section, rather than having a “may” clause, it could say the minister “must” adopt a multi-species or ecosystem approach when it's biologically and economically feasible or suitable to do so. Something like that would make it stronger.

I've mentioned a lot of clauses, such as 33, 34, and 58, in my written brief for those of you who want to look at more detail. There's a need for tightening up there to cover the habitat.

In conclusion, what we're looking for here is for critical habitat protection to be mandatory not only on federal lands, but for all species under federal jurisdiction. That would cover the badger, because it's transboundary. The federal law should be a safety net, ensuring an even protection for endangered and threatened species wherever they occur in Canada, and picking up the slack when you have a province like ours without provincial legislation.

Strong laws guide the value we place on our ecosystems. They indicate to human populations that times have changed, that they need to take a different approach to wildlife. You can show leadership here in providing that safety net.

We can't afford to let biodiversity just dwindle away while we sit here and do nothing, while we have ecosystems weakened and the very fabric of the biosphere destroyed. I'm sure you will agree with me, and I know you're going to work really hard on this. I thank you for it, because I think it will be wonderful if we can get federal endangered species legislation at last.

Thank you very much.

• 1700

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Mr. Chanady, please.

Mr. Attila Chanady (Conservation Director, Nature Saskatchewan): Thank you very much.

I'm Attila Chanady, conservation director of Nature Saskatchewan, a provincial organization founded in 1949. We are affiliated with the Canadian Nature Federation, and we too welcome the introduction of Bill C-5. We very strongly endorse many of the provisions designed to protect wildlife species at risk in Canada.

We're especially impressed by some of the principles and ideals enunciated in the preamble to the act: “the Government of Canada is committed to conserving biological diversity”; “the habitat of species at risk is key to their conservation”; and “Canada's protected areas, especially national parks, are vital to the protection and recovery of species at risk”. We also like the emphasis placed, in the preamble and in the act, on voluntary and stewardship activities and on the importance of cooperation between the various levels of government in this country.

I'm going to talk about stewardship and the importance of voluntary activities a little later, but I would like to suggest that the bill does not intend to and does not come to grips with the larger problem of ecosystem diversity. Biological diversity has to be seen as genetics, species, and ecosystem diversity. But the bill does allow the competent minister to adopt a multi-species or ecosystem approach when preparing recovery strategies and action plans.

We recommend that a clear statement be included in the preamble, that the government will adopt, whenever possible, an ecosystem approach to the conservation of species at risk in all federal jurisdictions, and we strongly urge provincial and territorial governments to do the same. Already, in an earlier submission last year, we suggested something similar, and I'd like to stress again the importance we attach to ecosystems.

We suggested that the effective conservation of biodiversity entails more than just saving the few conspicuous and popular species. It requires a more ambitious and comprehensive program of habitat and ecosystem protection and recovery, based on a synergistic approach to conservation. Therefore, we urge the federal government to state clearly—possibly in the preamble or in a separate formal declaration—an unequivocal commitment to do everything within its constitutional powers to develop such a program and legislation in cooperation with the provinces, scientists, and local stakeholders.

Turning to stewardship, you'll find that Nature Saskatchewan has many years of extensive experience in this area and in voluntary programs. The society has been directly involved with the Operation Burrowing Owl project—it administers it, in fact—conservation easement agreements, and habitat enhancement programs. We have achieved some notable successes. We are in partnership with Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, and a number of other national or provincial organizations, and we try to achieve what our mission statement states—that is, the conservation and preservation of Saskatchewan's natural heritage.

I think strong federal support, backed by legislation, is indispensable for all stewardship and voluntary programs. So is funding for public awareness and public education projects. That seems to be the key to the success of voluntary stewardship programs, especially when we consider programs in association with landowners, farmers, ranchers, and so on, in southern Saskatchewan.

• 1705

The agricultural community must be convinced that the Species at Risk Act will not have a detrimental impact on their legitimate interests, let alone lead to confiscation of private property. In our view, the cause of conservation on private land is best served by stewardship incentives and cooperation with landowners.

We have done this. We have, as I have indicated, a number of programs. We have paid and voluntary staff doing research and surveys, talking to landowners, and putting up signs, such as burrowing owl signs, warning signs, and so on. We publish newsletters, distribute information to landowners and various organizations representing agricultural grazing interests, and so on, in southern Saskatchewan.

I think it is important to stress the need here to support and fund stewardship programs. However, this is not or cannot be a universal panacea. We still need strong legislation, habitat protection, and a listing process, as some of my colleagues have indicated this afternoon.

I'd like to refer to these other issues very briefly. In our earlier submissions we recommended that the legal listing of species at risk be left to scientists. We understand the concerns, as do the Ontario Naturalists, about the potential socio-economic impact of recovery plans and action plans. In case such effects were deemed sufficiently detrimental to community or other interests, species at risk would not be listed under the present provisions of Bill C-5. Their killing and harming would not be prohibited.

We agree with Ontario that there is a way out, a compromise. We support the idea of a default list, the COSEWIC or scientist list, but agree the government should have, or could still have, discretionary authority to block at least temporarily the implementation of recovery and action plans, or even remove a species from the legal list if exceptional circumstances and the interests of a community so dictated.

The prohibitions and the implementation of recovery strategies are, I think, where the government would legitimately exercise its authority to protect certain community or societal interests.

The critical and most contentious area in the protection of endangered and threatened species is habitat. I think we all agree on this. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 is relatively weak on habitat protection. We ask that the government demonstrate leadership here by making habitat protection mandatory and not discretionary in all federal jurisdictions, including national parks, aquatic species covered under the Fisheries Act, species covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and species that range across international boundaries.

Let me return to the burrowing owl for a second. Recently we found that its winter grounds are in the United States in Arizona and Texas. This bird, an endangered species, does cross international boundaries. Hence, I think it is well within the federal jurisdiction to help save it. It's not included in the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It's not listed under that act. It makes it so much more important, I think, for the federal and provincial governments to act before these lovely, cute little birds disappear completely.

• 1710

Obviously the main problem in southern Saskatchewan is the loss of habitat, the conversion of grasslands into cultivated land, the breaking of land. Very little of native grassland is left in Saskatchewan, so its protection is imperative if we want to save endangered species.

With that, I would like to thank you once again for inviting us to appear before this committee. We hope that the bill, with some amendments, will be enacted, and that it will represent a strong action by the federal government to carry out its mandate and to meet its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Thank you very much indeed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you, Mr. Chanady.

Mr. Drolet, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet (Biologist, Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature): Good afternoon. My name is Charles-Antoine Drolet. I'm a retired public servant who worked for a number of years for the Canadian Wildlife Service. In the Quebec region, I was responsible for migratory bird conservation and I did research on various species in the Maritimes and in Northern Quebec. I currently volunteer my services to the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature and I am hear today as the UQCN's spokesperson.

First of all, the UQCN wants to thank the committee for the opportunity to present is viewpoint on this important bill. Wildlife species at risk are a major environmental concern and we can only say how glad we are to see this bill move through the various legislative stages. The perseverance of the Minister of the Environment, of his colleagues and of his officials deserves to be emphasized and commended.

Overall, it is our opinion that this bill is a step toward the preservation and recovery of species at risk. We believe that the explicit recognition of critical habitats, and the stewardship program for the protection of such habitats are very positive points. Indeed, we feel that protection of species at risk cannot be achieved without consideration for the habitat component of the equation, even if it does not always come into play.

The problem with critical habitats is that no one in Canada seems truly willing to assume responsibility for biodiversity protection. In our view, responsibility for conserving Canada's biodiversity ultimately rests with the federal government. In Quebec, we have concrete examples of cases where the habitats of designated endangered species are not protected. It is enough to make a person cynical. A total of eight species have been designated as endangered. Even though the Government of Quebec is required by law to protect these species' habitats, the government shirks its obligations by issuing orders in council and making decisions that fly in the face of this commitment.

The main problem with the federal Species at Risk Act is that there is no way of knowing who will be assuming ultimate responsibility for the conservation of species and their habitat. I agree completely with Mr. Chanady who argues that this responsibility should fall to the federal government and that it should have more obligations under the law.

In one particular test case in Quebec, public hearings are taking place on the development of a proposed dump site in the Haut-Richelieu region. The proposal calls for this dump site to be located in a forested area, perhaps the last remaining forested area in the Haut-Richelieu. This forest is also home to a plant species at risk. This serves as a test case for us. We are waiting to see what the outcome of these public hearings will be and if any real steps will be taken to protect this habitat.

• 1715

As things now stand, the project developer has agreed to relocate the endangered plant species. In our opinion , this is a totally unacceptable solution but we will have to await the final outcome of the hearings. That's my biggest concern about the conservation of endangered species and their habitats, namely that no one seems to want to assume responsibility for acting on this matter.

I propose that the legislation be amended so that this responsibility falls to the minister. Then we have some assurances that concrete action will be taken in Canada to preserve species at risk.

That concludes my remarks. I have circulated a document which focuses on other secondary areas. However, I believe that this issue is particularly important and critical.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you very much for your presentation.

Paul, you're up.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

Today we do indeed have the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, Nature Saskatchewan, and the Quebec Union for the Conservation of Nature. Thank you for coming.

I address this question because of the nature of your organizations, and I would like a brief answer from all of you. In your conservation efforts, how do you best provide incentive to landowners to encourage cooperation?

You see, a major part of this bill, if it's really going to work, is voluntary in its cooperation, with local initiative and innovation. We need the goodwill of individuals to really make it work. So being organizations such as you are, closely connected to local realities, I again ask, how do you best provide incentive to landowners or other locals who are in positions of control, to encourage their cooperation, especially around the issues of preserving habitat?

Maybe you could go in the same order in which you presented.

Mr. Gregor Beck: I think one of the most important things is that landowners and individuals who steward land have a good understanding of what is in fact in the legislation and what is not. From some of my own discussions with landowners—some relatives, in fact—in some cases, there is a misunderstanding of what has been proposed. So to start, I think it's important that people have a clear understanding of what's there, as Mr. Chanady was pointing out, and to address some of the fears and concerns. So education is needed around what's in legislation and on what measures individuals can do to help steward land and wildlife habitat.

In many cases, an individual can continue to do many things on the landscape that perhaps, through misunderstanding, they felt weren't possible. So in many cases, by working with landowners, some stewardship agreements can be arranged.

In Ontario, with its Endangered Species Act, part of the lethargy that I mentioned in our province has been out of good intentions, where the Ministry of Natural Resources has gone out to consult with all affected landowners in areas where an endangered species that was about to be regulated occurs. That's a very labour-intensive process, but it is in fact what has been done. Between various agencies of government, and in fact some of our own groups through our network of member groups and individuals, we can help communicate the message of what individuals can do.

So I think understanding is very important, and also opportunities for incentives, whether through conservation easements, which have tax benefits in some cases, or.... The listing of a species in Ontario, for example, can also help with financial incentives through, in our case, conservation land tax incentives.

So there's a variety of means: clear understanding; modification of habitat to protect a species; as well as perhaps some tax incentives.

• 1720

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Could we get our witnesses to try to make the answers as brief as possible? Try to keep it to five minutes per question and answer.

Ms. Anne Murray: Okay. Should I give mine?

First, rare species are rare, so it's not a kind of blanket habitat protection we're looking for when we're just talking rare species. It's going to be an unusual day when somebody has a rare species on their land. So people shouldn't immediately think they're going to have land taken away from them or some constraints on it. This is something rare. And most of my experience has been that when people have it explained to them how interesting and rare the species is, there's usually a lot of good will, in that they're really interested in helping. What they don't like is people marching in from outside. Unfortunately, in B.C. it's usually this guy who's coming in from Ottawa and telling them what to do. But if you really get down out there, right at the initial level of identifying that this species occurs and that it could be on their land, and start discussing with them how they can help, then usually there's a lot of good will there.

But there's one proviso: it has to be fair. Often when people help out environmentally or ecologically, they suffer some financial burden, which their competitors don't. We saw this in the South Okanagan with the vineyards, where some people were putting netting on their crops that was more expensive, but safer for the birds, stopping the birds getting trapped underneath. The vineyards were being very cooperative about this and doing the best thing to prevent birds getting trapped. But one vineyard owner didn't go to the expense, so birds were being killed on his property. That was seen as very unfair and not right. It's good to have the stick in those examples, to be able to come in with some legislation in those cases, just to make it fair for everybody. When people are doing the best thing, you've got to make sure that nobody's burdened unnecessarily.

So I would say engage in good discussion early on and make it fair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Chanady.

Mr. Attila Chanady: Obviously it takes a multifaceted approach—this is not simple. I mentioned in my brief presentation that we do a lot of educational work. You have to go out and meet these people and talk to them. But let me say that many farmers, rooted in the soil, as it were, understand the meaning of conservation. They're good stewards of the land. Perhaps they're not familiar with conservation biology, but they understand what it means to keep the soil productive and to have healthy trees and bushes and animals and birds around them. So I think education is crucial here, in case they do not or they need additional information.

Let me just suggest how easy it is for people to understand what pollution means—the fertilizer problem. In the same way, I think, if we explain to them clearly what interdependence in nature means, what ecological principles are involved here, what they mean, they'll understand that. They're just as important, if not more so, than pollutants and so on. Life is more than just produce and sell and enjoy the profits, and so on—interaction, the way species are interdependent, the web of life, if you like. So I think this is part of our educational mission.

Then we have incentives. We do have financial incentives to farmers to reseed, convert land back to pasture from cultivated land. Other programs in habitat stewardship are accompanied by funding, so that obviously money is involved here. But in our experience, personal contact means a great deal too.

• 1725

In Saskatchewan, of course, you're looking at a relatively small population, so if you have a large pool of volunteers, employees of the government, of SERM, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, and so on, it is possible to reach out and to convince these people that we are not there to harm their interests.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Drolet, I would ask you to keep it very brief. We have a great many questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: In Quebec, the UQCN is responsible for implementing a program called ZICO which stands for “zones importantes pour la conservation des oiseaux”. The union works with people and local associations to implement programs. Communities are taught to take responsibility for their actions and action plans are developed and supported by the people in the community. We look for financial incentives and try to arrange for jobs in the short and medium term to implement these action plans in these specific zones. I see a great many parallels between this program and what could be done for critical habitats for endangered species.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

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

I too wish to thank our witnesses for coming here today. My questions will be directed primarily to Mr. Drolet.

Mr. Drolet, in your presentation, you seem to imply that the environment is a shared jurisdiction and on this point there is no disagreement. You also emphasized the importance of federal legislation aimed at protecting species and again, we agree with you.

In 1989, Quebec passed an Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species. Also on the books are An Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and fishery regulations aimed at protecting certain species. We both agree that most of these measures contain some serious shortcomings. This is the position I plan to take on Friday when I lobby Quebec's Environment Minister to toughen ups these acts, in particular the one respecting threatened or vulnerable species, by bringing in broader designations, bigger sanctions and an obligation to develop recovery plans.

Now the federal government is seeking to enact legislation. Many stakeholders have told me this act does little to protect Crown lands. We are also hearing that in terms of federal responsibilities, specifically responsibility for migratory birds, the act does not protect these particular species.

Are you not willing to admit that fundamentally, the best and most effective approach to take would be to shore up Quebec's legislation respecting threatened or vulnerable species, to adopt necessary measures through the conservation and wildlife development act, to bring in stringent regulations and to ensure that the federal legislation is stringently enforced on Crown lands and in all areas under its responsibility, including migratory birds?

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: I fully agree with you that responsibility should rest with the provinces. If Quebec could be encouraged to take action along these lines, then I would be very pleased to see some progress on this front. However, it's clear that Quebec is having some serious problems implementing the legislation. Along the way, the province has amended the legislation to reduce Quebec's obligation to protect habitats. Clearly, Quebec has no desire to act to protect those habitats it itself has designated. That is what we have found. I agree with you that if Quebec were to act and fulfil its obligations, the situation would be perfect. We need to move in that direction and I encourage you to put some pressure on the Quebec minister to take action.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have another question. You stated the following in your observations:

[...] we do not see how the obligation the federal government has given itself in clause 61 of protecting critical habitats by Order in Council is going to work.

Could you clarify that statement for me?

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: As I was saying, we need an effective partnership between the different levels of government to achieve this goal. In clause 61, the federal government may issue an order in council, but only after consulting with the provinces and under certain conditions. The order in council designation is by no means automatic and is in no way forceful enough to ensure that in Canada, responsibility for biodiversity conservation ultimately rests with the federal minister. The problem I see here is that relations between the different levels of government are very poor and a true partnership cannot be developed to bring about the attainment of these habitat preservation goals.

• 1730

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

I would just interrupt for one minute. We had a proposed motion. Ms. Carroll is not here to propose that motion. I believe this is one of the few times in government when we might well have had a motion, but we have an answer before we put the motion. So with the committee's permission—all members have copies of this letter—if it would be acceptable, unless someone finds a problem with that—certainly there are questions that could be asked and we could take some time with this—for the sake of time, because we do have guests here, I would propose that we not make the motion, that we accept this letter. If Ms. Carroll comes back and wants to make a further motion or ask further questions, we can do that, with the committee's permission.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Yes, Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): On a point of clarification, if, after reading the letter, the committee has any questions at another time, I'd be happy to speak to them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Good, thank you very much.

Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

Madam Murray, I want a clarification on something you said in your presentation, when you talked about the badger and then talked about transboundary species. In one of your recommendations you said that critical habitat protection for all species under federal jurisdiction should be mandatory. I believe you added that this would then protect the badger, because it was a transboundary species. Is that what you said?

Ms. Anne Murray: I can't exactly remember what I said, because I started ad libbing. But yes, the transboundary species aren't mentioned in the present bill—at least, I couldn't find them there.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. No, they are not.

Ms. Anne Murray: It is a transboundary species, and my understanding is that transboundary species would come under federal jurisdiction. That way, if you then had habitat protection for species under federal jurisdiction, it would include the badger.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

It is rather unfortunate, because in a previous piece of legislation that came before the committee and the House in 1997 there was a section that dealt with transboundary species or cross-border species, which required a trigger with the federal government coming in if the province didn't have comparable legislation, and it was mandatory. We don't have that in this legislation.

I would also like to ask the witnesses a question—and anyone can respond if they choose. We had a lawyer from Justice Canada, who was working with Environment Canada, I guess, who said that just because a species is a transboundary species, it does not come under federal jurisdiction. I wonder if you can make a comment on that—anyone who would like to.

Ms. Anne Murray: The reason I included it in my presentation was advice we had from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, so it's maybe up to legal interpretation by differing lawyers.

Mr. Attila Chanady: If you do have a transboundary, international boundary species, who in Canada is authorized to deal with, say, the United States government? It's not the provincial governments, it's the federal government. So as soon as you have an international issue, a transboundary issue, it has to be the federal government. The provincial government is not entitled, is not competent to enter into negotiations with the United States government.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gregor Beck: The number of transboundary species that are birds would also be covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Maybe that's the test case.

• 1735

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for having to step out.

I have a question for Mr. Beck. I apologize if this has been asked, but I was interested in it. If it has been, I'll get the information from somebody else. You indicated that under the Ontario legislation there were 26 regulated species.

Mr. Gregor Beck: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But only 18 of those are on the COSEWIC list.

Mr. Gregor Beck: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you tell me why the other eight aren't on the COSEWIC list? I know there are many others on the COSEWIC list that aren't on the regulated list, but why are there eight on the regulated that aren't on the COSEWIC?

Mr. Gregor Beck: There are some Ontario species that are particularly at risk in our province, but nationally they may not be.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay, so they may be doing fine in some of the other provinces.

That was all, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

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

I have a particular dilemma. I come from a part of Canada that is urbanizing very quickly at a rate that boggles my mind. Over half of the species at risk are aquatic, yet we pay a great deal of attention to our cute burrowing owl and so on, but we seem to be ignoring the ugly marine life. I would like some input from anyone as to how to deal with this situation.

Lake Ontario has been under attack for many years. It has come to the point where the Ministry of Natural Resources now recommends that if you catch fish in that lake, you eat those fish sparingly, and if you're a pregnant woman, you don't eat them at all. Yet the engineers who are doing the urbanizing are still running pipes into the lake to take out water and deliver sewage effluent back into dilution.

What concerns me is that this bill really only attempts to address those species on land and those species that aren't in the urban domain or that don't seem to be in the urban domain. So it becomes very easy for urban Canada to become very righteous about endangered species, those burrowing owls and the grizzly bears in the south end of B.C., etc., but it's very convenient to ignore the beluga whale in the St. Lawrence River, which is the canary in the mine that tells us that the river has become toxic. Do you have any suggestions that would be helpful here?

Mr. Gregor Beck: Mr. Reed, your comments are very well taken and very true. It speaks to the importance of a broader ecosystem approach to environmental issues in the broadest sense. What goes down the pipes and into the Credit River from Georgetown or in the town of Norval into Lake Ontario I know very well ends up in the sewer of the St. Lawrence. So when we look at pollution issues, we need to take that watershed approach to deal with the issues more holistically.

Lake Ontario suffers from pollution problems. It suffers from tremendous biodiversity issues. Basically, Lake Ontario is an aquatic zoo. Most of the dominant fish species are aliens stocked by government agencies or in some cases provincially. Urban sprawl and changing agricultural practices in southwestern Ontario are having a tremendous impact on aquatic species. The number of aquatic species that will be on our lists is increasing as we address them. They're increasing probably much faster than the number of terrestrial species—all sorts of strange mussels and clams and things. This is where the next wave of extinctions will be in Canada, in our aquatic species.

• 1740

In some of the cases, with some species, it will be directly attributable to the loss of forest and wetland habitat adjacent to rivers, and to pollution. So in some cases it might be very easy to make a direct correlation to the land use practice adjacent to a watercourse affecting certain species, and maybe this bill needs to look at pollution and habitat issues surrounding some of those aquatic areas. But we need to look at things in the bigger picture. A species-at-risk act is the last resort. It's one tool, but I think we need that broader safety net.

Mr. Julian Reed: Is it worthwhile to start a campaign with urban engineers to show them that there are alternatives to putting sewer pipes into Lake Ontario?

You talk about land use, and I know land use on the Credit River and the reforestation that has taken place. I know there has been a big change. But the urban growth has countered it, and the engineering in those towns is still putting storm sewers into the river.

Mr. Gregor Beck: The biggest problem for urban and suburban rivers is storm water outfalls, and in older cities, combined sewer, which includes raw sewage. So there are some grand engineering problems that have to be addressed. All the trees we plant and the demonstration wetlands are great for education and great for biodiversity in creating habitat, but they're not addressing effectively or adequately the pollution problems, which in many cases are what's driving some species to being at risk.

Mr. Julian Reed: How do we deal with that?

Ms. Anne Murray: If I could just jump in, we have a project that started in B.C. with the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, and we got a grant to take it to Ontario. It is the “Living by Water” project. It targets people who live either on the waterfront or in fact in waterfront communities and starts talking about working towards healthier human and wildlife habitat, because people are not motivated to help wildlife, sadly, as it is, but they will act to protect their own health. The motto of the project is “working towards healthier human and wildlife habitat along the shorelines of Canada”, and it's addressing this sort of thing.

We had millennium funding last year thanks to the government, and various partners, like DFO, and so on, have provided some money. So hopefully education programs like that would help, plus some more laws. Maybe this endangered species law is just a start. If we can get this one through, maybe we should look at some other laws.

One we're interested in in B.C. is to actually have some marine protected areas that will have no-take zones and will be kept clean and pristine and protected so as to provide regeneration centres for stocks to come back. Personally, I'm hoping that the environmental and conservation and the naturalist community will start setting some targets like were set on land for protected areas and start shooting for some percentages of the coastline that should be protected.

So anything anybody can do to help these initiatives is great, and the more people talk about them, like yourselves, that surely will educate people, because that's what we need.

The Chair: Mr. Chanady.

Mr. Attila Chanady: If I may add to that, Saskatchewan administers the “Living by Water” project for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and it's quite successful. It's a very worthwhile educational project.

The other point I'd like to make is on watersheds. The watershed approach is sadly missing from many forestry management plans. For instance, in northeastern Saskatchewan it's going to be one of the great problems in the next ten years or so with the Churchill River, but also the Swan River and the Assiniboine River. Here we have a case where interprovincial cooperation with a strong federal role would help to devise a management plan that is based on the watershed concept, not just single river or pollution by a single pollutant. It's the entire watershed, and it's similar to the ecosystem-based approach.

• 1745

It has been very difficult to adopt a watershed approach to water conservation—water quality controls. Even in the nineteenth century, it took generations in Britain for some of the counties to join forces and to agree on a watershed-based approach to conservation. So I think it's still unfortunately a very big problem in Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Just to start where you ended off, there was a gathering this summer called a “river gathering”, and it's similar to the same context of where the water flows that's where the source of life is.

In researching this, I ended up looking at some history. In 1909 there was a Canadian Conservation Council that existed for 12 years here in Parliament. It slowly fell apart once the chairperson retired. One of the recommendations was that intensive logging—or any kind of logging—be prohibited at the headwaters of any river system. It's a very sensitive micro-ecosystem, especially at the headwater regions. It researched and documented all of this. So I was looking through all this documentation and this history of this council, and then I come through this bill. Clause 7 of this bill refers to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

The recommendation that you're making or challenging the government on here is to not only look at the endangered species habitat or the species themselves, but to look at the whole web and the food cycle. Maybe we should go back to the teachings of our history, just take the endangered species off this conservation council, and create a Canadian Conservation Council, inclusive of the provinces, the territories, the House of Commons with the ministries, maybe the Senate and maybe aboriginal representation, because then you encapsulate everybody in this country. You go about challenges that we could be facing. There's science, traditional knowledge, regions, and micro eco-regions that are being impacted that we don't know, but once they fall apart it's a domino effect down the river system.

I want to end by asking what you see in this act that we could make to broaden the scope of your conservation challenge that you've set forth. I think it was Nature Saskatchewan that made this challenge. I don't know if the other people concurred with you that we should broaden it beyond the endangered species listing.

Ms. Anne Murray: I did have subclause 41(3), that opportunity for an ecosystem approach, but it's just that one little snippet. That's all I could really find, on page 21. It's sort of tantalizing, but there's an opportunity there maybe for some expansion.

Mr. Gregor Beck: I think the other area that talks about where there are assemblages of threatened or endangered species, which you have in the Okanagan and which we have in the extreme southwest of Ontario with the Carolinian zone.... That's good to look at things in that ecosystem basis, but sometimes we need to look at things from different angles. You can look at protecting species based on those life zones—Carolinian forest or boreal forest areas—but that would not completely address Mr. Reed's concern about downstream impacts within watersheds.

For aquatic species, you'll have to look at that watershed concept as well, and that's very much a transboundary issue. Great Lakes watershed should really be the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence watershed, because one flows into the other. That's 45 million people, and they're not all Canadians. So we sometimes have to look from different angles, when we're trying to protect species and habitat. Are you trying to protect species in the Carolinian zone? Well then, you look at it based on those life zones. But for aquatic species, you're going to have to look at watersheds, and they could cross many.

• 1750

[Translation]

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: I have a comment. In fact, I did comment on a concern expressed by Mr. Laliberté. This act is but one component of a species conservation strategy and as I was saying, it must be coupled with a sustainable management approach to the environment. Can a piece of legislation ensure sustainable environmental management, the only true indicator a genuine strategy for ecosystem and species conservation?

The proposed legislative measures focus on specific conservation components which are never complete. There is a failure to grasp the overall picture. Earlier, Mr. Reed spoke of the problem of species conservation in a marine environment. In Quebec, for example, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park was established to preserve endangered beluga whales. However, the belugas are not necessarily protected just because the Park exists. They endure poor water quality and continue to develop cancer as a result of carcinogenic substances in the water.

The solution, therefore, is not necessarily to ensure that the beluga habitat is protected. Rather, the solution is to ensure that all contaminants are eliminated from the entire St. Lawrence watershed. A mere legislative measure is not going to accomplish that.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Ms. Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this discussion is a very important one. The perspective you represent helps us focus on this wider ecosystem approach and saving certain kinds of ecosystem, whether they're wetlands or watersheds, and how they all work together, permeating forests, that sort of thing.

The problem we have is that habitat protection is discretionary in this legislation. Even though we might take an ecosystem approach, as identified, we're not going to broadly suggest we're going to take huge types of ecosystems into consideration or protection. We're not even looking at critical habitat as mandatory. This is a problem, because you can't even put a marker in the sand and then begin to work from there, expand it, and make it better.

The other thing is, when you start talking about transboundary species and shared jurisdiction, the Americans have mandatory habitat protection and we don't. If you're a species wintering in the United States, you'll find better protection; if you're summering in Canada, you won't, depending on what you are.

So there are some real problems with that. I'm sure you have other things you'd like to add as well with regard to discretionary habitat protection.

Ms. Anne Murray: That just reinforces what we were saying earlier, that we would really want to see mandatory habitat protection for species under federal jurisdiction on all federal lands. I would have liked to see it on broader lands than that. With our province not having provincial endangered species legislation, so much of our land being provincial crown land, it leaves an awfully big hole. I guess that would open too many jurisdictional wars, but definitely, wherever there's federal jurisdiction, go for it.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: In fact, the minister isn't even obligated to protect species under federal stewardship on Crown lands. As a first step, the minister should be obligated to protect the habitat of endangered species, at least on Crown lands. Secondly, the minister should be obligated to protect the habitat of species under federal stewardship. That's a minimum, in my view.

• 1755

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Beck, did you want to say something?

Mr. Gregor Beck: Leading by demonstration is a very effective educational tool. If the federal government really wants to get good buy-in for stewardship and protection of species at risk and habitat, the onus is on the federal government to lead through demonstration. Federal lands and federal jurisdiction would be the place to start. If that doesn't happen, it's going to be harder to sell that to provinces, territories, or landowners.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

Mr. Chanady.

Mr. Attila Chanady: I just wanted to add two points. Saskatchewan has the Wildlife Act and the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, but they're entirely discretionary, not mandatory. So some federal involvement or cooperation at the federal-provincial level would be very useful.

Even in national parks we have the problem of habitat protection. The National Parks Act, as it came into force this year, stipulates that ecological integrity should have primacy in all management decisions. Yet in Prince Albert National Park in Saskatchewan, this has not been possible or certainly not easy. There's a great deal of resistance to habitat protection within the park by people with interests in the recreational industry, the tourism industry, sport fishing, and so on.

Our recommendation that one of the three big lakes be rezoned and fully protected has not been accepted so far. There is a great deal of resistance to this. Another interesting problem in the Prince Albert National Park is that there is a dam that prevents fish from larger lakes outside of the national park from swimming into lakes in the park. There is a barrier to genetic exchange by dams. Again, the removal of the dam is opposed by private interests, individuals, and residents of Waskesiu. So there are problems even in a national park where you would assume that protection is taken for granted. That's all I can say. But it's a real problem.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Beck, when you were making your comments, one of the things you mentioned was a fair compensation system. Clearly, it sets quite a precedent to have included that in this bill. I was wondering if you had read Dr. Pearse's report. It has been a starting point for a discussion of a very complex issue. I was wondering if you wanted to comment on what you see as a fair compensation system.

Mr. Gregor Beck: I haven't read the report, so I couldn't comment on that specifically.

I don't have a great deal to add at this point, but I would be happy to consult with some of my colleagues who deal with compensation and provide that in a supplemental package.

Our organization deals with some of these issues where we provide assistance to landowners on things such as conservation easements. If restrictions are placed on that land, it affects future sales and land use. That's one thing. It's still early days on that concept, and no one is too sure what's going to happen in the subsequent 999 years of the easement agreements. But that's one example of something that has been used.

We have tax incentives in Ontario that might provide some examples, such as the managed forest tax incentive program or conservation land tax incentives. There are a number of things we could look at, and I'd be pleased to provide some more detailed comments in a supplemental brief.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you very much.

• 1800

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Is it my turn again already?

Mr. Beck, Ms. Murray and Mr. Drolet, a few minutes ago, further to comments by Ms. Kraft Sloan, you made it fairly clear that in your view, the federal government was not setting an example with this bill by failing to include an obligation to protect species on Crown lands.

Yet, through this same act, the federal government is giving itself the power to intervene in wildlife preserves managed by the Quebec government. I'm thinking here in particular about wildlife refuges in Quebec, whether in Portneuf or elsewhere. Officials were clear on this point: the bill provides for the designation of federal enforcement officers, whereas under our provincial conservation and wildlife development legislation, we have what are known as wildlife conservation officers, if I'm not mistaken.

How do you envisage the application of this act to wildlife areas and preserves managed by the Government of Quebec? Where should the authority of these federal enforcement officers begin and where should it end? And what of the authority of Quebec's wildlife conservation officers?

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: That's a rather crucial question. I would hope that these matters will be debated between the federal and provincial governments and that agreements amenable to both parties are worked out. Earlier, you asked if I would prefer to see the provinces have responsibility for enforcing the endangered species legislation and I answered in the affirmative. I would very much like to see the provinces, and Quebec in particular, enforce the acts and have responsibility for protecting habitats on lands under provincial jurisdiction. In response to your question, I stand by my position. It's even more important in the case of lands protected by the province.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I agree. I have a comment rather than a question. As I understand it, pursuant to the federal legislation, a federal enforcement officer will be able to intervene in a wildlife reserve in Quebec, whereas a wildlife conservation officer will have no authority to intervene in the case of La Mauricie National Park. Is that also your understanding of the proposed legislation?

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: We've already encountered this situation in Quebec where we have both federal and provincial wildlife conservation officers. I don't believe any problems have arisen in Quebec over the actions of federal conservation officers and their behaviour toward provincial officers. Speaking from experience - and I have supervised staff in charge of enforcing the federal legislation in Quebec - we have always worked with Quebec when it came to enforcing provisions of the legislation respecting migratory birds.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: You're saying then that based on your experience, the two levels of government have a working protocol in place.

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: I can't say for certain if it's a formal protocol, but there does not appear to be any problem. I've frequently witnessed extremely productive cooperation on legislative enforcement between the federal and provincial governments.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very simple question, and perhaps each one of you might consider venturing an answer.

Are humans part of nature?

• 1805

Mr. Gregor Beck: Yes.

Ms. Anne Murray: That was easy.

Mr. Attila Chanady: Yes.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you. That runs totally counter to what a biologist told me, that we weren't. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): I might take the liberty to ask a couple of questions. I've been trying to wait until we get near the end.

First, I noticed, Mr. Drolet, in the brief I read last night, that you emphasized the number of meetings, the number of professionals that would have to be involved and are concerned that it would all cost a lot of money. I wonder how each of you might look at the matter of putting in the money to save the endangered species and balancing that with all the bureaucracy we might well create to try to administer an act like this. Some people would even go so far, in the part of the world I come from, as to ask, do you really need all that bureaucracy and all that legislation, because we already want to cooperate to save wildlife—just tell us where they are, tell us how we can help. There are all kinds of programs where they're doing that. Yes, we need some legislation, but how much, and what are your concerns?

I'll just ask the three things, and then you can think about them, and whoever wants to can answer.

As to the compensation issue, the message I get from landowners, ranchers, land users is that they are concerned about this. That's the one thing they all seem to zero in on.

Third, we had the chairman of COSEWIC yesterday, and he troubled me with one answer that I'm thinking about. He said his jurisdiction and his concerns stopped at the border. A lot of you have made reference to transborder species, and my concern is when we get something on the list by saying species A is very plentiful in the U.S., a few have crossed over the border, and now it is a very rare species in that province. His answer to me was, yes, it's an endangered species, because he would not look beyond that border. That seemed strange to me—certainly those animals, plants, seeds, whatever, don't know where that border is. I wondered if you could respond to those three areas or give me your feelings about them.

Ms. Anne Murray: I'd like to respond to that last point. I know what the gentleman on the COSEWIC was probably referring to, species like the sage thrasher in the south Okanagan—we just have a few sometimes, maybe not one for a long time, but there are more of them further south. But I mentioned in my presentation how the northern peripheral species have genetic importance, and recent studies are showing that often it's those edge species that maintain species as a whole—they're the whole population.

There's a paper I found in Nature just recently that I could send you a copy of, if you're interested. I found it very interesting indeed, because it goes counter to what you'd think. If you've got a big population, you'd think the core would hold steady and the edge would be eaten away, but in fact it was the other way round. It said that the edge was what often kept species surviving, while the core disappeared. So it's kind of counterintuitive, to me anyway.

So just because they're an edge species and there are plenty more somewhere else, we musn't dismiss them as not important. Also, with climate change, we're going to see species moving north anyway, so what's maybe only one or two now may be the vanguard of others coming in.

This in a way goes to your second point about the cost of it. I think those kinds of occasional species probably could be dealt with quite well by stewardship and education, rather than too much of a legalistic approach. You may find there's some discretion in the hands of those administering the bill, even as to which species they're going to prosecute on, if they do actually take it to a court case. There might well be some discretion there. I don't think you're just going to slap penalties on everybody over every species equally.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): We hope not.

Ms. Anne Murray: That's my feeling.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Beck.

• 1810

Mr. Gregor Beck: With regard to species that cross the border where perhaps in Canada we have just a small population, that can sometimes occur because it's just at the edge of the range, as Ms. Murray was speaking about. Sometimes we have species that are abundant south of the border but not here, but that is for a different reason. That is because we have destroyed the habitat where they were once found. The Carolinian ecological zone in southwestern Ontario is a prime example. Virtually all of that zone has been destroyed through forest harvest and agricultural practices.

As far as our level of guilt and responsibility is concerned, if a species is found in Canada on the edge of its range and is particularly imperilled because we have changed the habitat, I think we have a considerable conservation responsibility. There is a responsibility as well for biodiversity, as was just mentioned.

But there are species that occur in small numbers. COSEWIC formerly called those rare, such as Ross's gull. Only a few of them are known to nest in Canada. There is a larger population, though not particularly large, in Siberia. I think we need to make that distinction.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles-Antoine Drolet: I think that populations at the limit of their distribution have a greater likelihood of displaying genetic diversity that the overall population found elsewhere. The mere fact that the species population is abundant beyond the border is not a reason not to take steps to conserve these populations because, as Ms. Murray was saying, we don't know if the population is expanding or shrinking. Therefore, I think steps must be taken to preserve these species populations.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Thank you.

Mr. Attila Chanady: I was just wondering how idealistic we should be to believe we can save species and their habitat without legislation and so on. After all, for hundreds of years we haven't had legislation and look at what has happened. The rate of extinction is gathering speed. With due respect to some conservation-minded people, whether in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or anywhere else in Canada or the world, there are far too many people who have to be reminded that there is a law and there are certain rules, the carrot-and-stick approach. I think legislation is important, and the history of conservation in the last 200 or 300 years proves that.

As far as the geographical distribution of species is concerned, you always have this gradual shrinkage and, as others have pointed out, it's not a reason for us to be complacent. Even within Canada you may find a bird threatened in one province but perhaps more abundant, less threatened, or of special concern in a neighbouring province. You get these variations. But as soon as they are of special concern and you find that, for example, in the neighbouring province of Manitoba the bird is endangered or extirpated, we are not going to wait. We'll see what we can do to save that bird. Otherwise, it goes the same way as the Manitoba population. This applies to beluga whales and many birds that migrate from north to south and back, neotropical migrants and so on.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): I would like to thank our witnesses. Thank you very much for waiting for an hour. I think you know why that happened. It allowed a great many members to go to another engagement, which you know about. Feel free to contact our committee. You know what we're doing and our process. Thank you for your contribution.

The meeting is adjourned.