ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 17, 2001

• 0901

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to you all. Please take your seats.

As you know, we are resuming our hearings on Bill C-5. We have many witnesses this morning. The members of the committee welcome you. I understand that Mr. Orchel would like to go first, with a movie?

Mr. Jack Orchel (Bald Eagle Project Coordinator, Hawk and Owl Trust (United Kingdom)): Sir, the movie comes part-way through my presentation.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking you for your invitation to comment on Canada's proposed legislation to protect species at risk. I represent the Hawk and Owl Trust, the British charity devoted to the conservation of wild birds of prey and their habitats.

Over the past 20 years, the United Kingdom has witnessed a remarkable increase in its numbers of breeding osprey, goshawk, and peregrine falcon. In Scotland, the white-tailed sea eagle—which was extirpated in 1916—has now been re-established as a breeding bird through an ambitious reintroduction project. After an absence of many decades, red kites are nesting on the very outskirts of London, and merlins are occupying new nest sites at the edge of forestry plantations throughout our uplands.

These increases in populations of raptors in landscapes greatly altered by humans have occurred as a result of strong legal protection linked to favourable habitat changes and conservation schemes involving government, landowners, and non-government organizations.

The trust hopes that Canada's proposed Species at Risk Act will harmonize protection measures for Canada's rare and vulnerable species, such as hawks, falcons, eagles, and owls. Many of these birds, as the committee members know, undertake long journeys to occupy winter habitats far from their Canadian breeding grounds.

The Hawk and Owl Trust is aware that this act is being proposed at a time when Canada is taking decisive steps to redress historical injustices experienced by her first nations. We also recognize that the Government of Canada seeks to achieve meaningful participation of aboriginal peoples in action plans to protect rare and threatened species.

For example, last month a ground-breaking general protocol agreement on land-use planning and interim measures was signed by six of British Columbia's coastal first nations. This agreement, which involves the governments of British Columbia and Canada, will promote an ecosystem-based approach to land-use planning in some of Canada's most diverse and species-rich landscapes.

• 0905

However, we all know that when it is not possible to reach agreement in matters of land use, wildlife can be adversely affected. So robust legislation is required to maintain the survival and distribution of species that are particularly sensitive to alteration of their habitats.

With this in mind, I would like to comment on an issue that we in Britain feel should be reviewed by this committee. I refer to the protection of migratory birds of prey. It is fitting that this request should come from Britain, because Britain worked closely with the United States to draw up Canada's original Migratory Birds Convention in 1916—which still underpins Canada's 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act. Through that original 1916 agreement, Britain and the United States sought to protect those transboundary birds they considered to be useful to humans, or at least harmless.

In those distant days, birds of prey were thought to be harmful and were widely persecuted in North America and Britain. They were also excluded from the protected species listed in article 1 of the 1916 legislation.

Fortunately, we now live in more enlightened times. Over the past 40 years, we have learned that birds of prey perform a very useful role as indicators of healthy environments or environmental problems. This is evident from North American studies of bird-eating raptors like the peregrine falcon and research into the fish-eating osprey and bald eagles—whose numbers declined alarmingly in the 1960s and 1970s, but are now recovering.

Nowhere is the role of raptors as biological sentinels more apparent than in the Nass River Valley of northwest British Columbia. This is the homeland of the Nisga'a people and the location of the trust's recent collaborative bald eagle studies. The Nass Valley lies on the Pacific flyway, close to Canada's border with southeast Alaska.

Every spring, more than a thousand bald eagles gather on the tidal reaches of the lower Nass River to feast on spawning oolichan, or candlefish. Having taken their daily fill, the birds retire to communal roosts in nearby old-growth forests. Some of these roosting areas are shown in the reference papers circulated to you.

A 1997 report by LGL Limited, environmental consultants to the Nisga'a people, was prepared for British Columbia's ministry of transportation and highways. It confirmed that large numbers of juvenile eagles gathered in the lower Nass Valley. This fact suggests that, as the report says:

...the lower Nass River is a critical rearing habitat for them during spring... It is plausible that eagles using the Nass River in the spring are attracted from hundreds of kilometres away, as shown in other studies. Consequently, the Nass River provides important habitat for eagles from distant locations in British Columbia and Alaska.

The point I wish to make is that unfortunately this important fact was not reflected in any special provisions within the wildlife chapter of the landmark Nisga'a Treaty. Over many years of negotiations, neither British Columbia nor Canada appears to have encouraged the Nisga'a people to designate a protected area for these migratory birds of prey, or any other migratory birds that visit the Nass River.

By default, some of the most important forest roosting areas—traditionally frequented by large flocks of migratory eagles in spring—have been included in the province's annual allowable timber quota. We suggest that this arrangement needs to be re-examined.

The precautionary principle should be applied by Canada, by British Columbia, and by the Nisga'a Nation, to ensure that proper habitat protection measures—and, if necessary, proper compensation measures—are put in place to safeguard the most important migratory bird areas in the Nass Valley.

In light of this unusual set of circumstances—and also because many land claims and land settlements are still being negotiated in British Columbia—the trust considers that the Species at Risk Act should give more explicit protection to migratory birds of prey. Because a precautionary approach is desirable, we request that the committee consider strengthening the Species at Risk Act by amending section 1 of the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act. This amendment would formally add hawks, eagles, owls, and falcons—the birds left off the original 1916 list—to the present federally protected migratory species.

• 0910

We suggest that this amendment would support the fundamental intentions of the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention—that is, to protect useful migratory birds. It would also further the aims of the 1994 act and reflect informed opinion in Canada and the United States.

It is worth mentioning that birds of prey were added to the migratory bird and small mammal treaty between the United States and Mexico as long ago as 1972. Surely this matter can be directly addressed by Canada at the beginning of the 21st century.

In order to illustrate the importance of protecting habitat for migratory birds of prey, I should like the committee to view a short film that was shot in the Nass Valley in March 1999. It gives an impression of the Nisga'a oolichan fishery, as well as of the many eagles and other birds that gather near Fishery Bay in spring. Similar eagle-gathering sites are scattered along Canada's Pacific coast.

Perhaps committee members could bear in mind that the tidal-spawning habitat of the oolichan fish, which attracts so many eagles, is automatically protected by federal fisheries legislation, whereas the critical forest habitat, which the migrating eagles also require for their survival, apparently does not enjoy the same level of protection.

[Editor's Note: Video Presentation]

• 0915

Mr. Jack Orchel: The second issue the trust is concerned about is that the act's provisions for protecting critical breeding habitats may not be comprehensive enough to prevent degradation of habitat for the rarer forest-dwelling birds of prey. Birds such as the northern goshawk and spotted owl require freedom from disturbance during the breeding season. This can be provided by establishing buffer zones around traditional nesting sites and by incorporating raptor retention blocks for future nesting when forest management plans are being prepared.

Will the act be able to ensure that forestry interests respect all the breeding requirements of such species? This concern also applies to the forest-nesting bald eagle.

It will come as no surprise to the committee that we are also rather worried to find that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has not listed the bald eagle as a species of special concern. There are good ecological reasons for seeking the bird's inclusion in schedule 2 of the act. Quite simply, it is exposed to increasing human pressures in many of its breeding and wintering areas. Unlike the osprey, the bald eagle is very sensitive to human disturbance during the breeding season.

British Columbia, which remains Canada's bald eagle stronghold, is not without problems in this regard. In a 1994 report commissioned by British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the threat of human encroachment was defined in the following terms:

Bald eagle nesting requirements in British Columbia, as elsewhere, consist of large trees for nest support, and adjacent aquatic food sources. This habitat occurs at low elevations along the entire coast, and along major rivers and around lakes or wetland complexes in the Interior. ... These productive lowlands are precisely the area where most of British Columbia's human population is concentrated, as well as much forest harvesting and land clearance for agricultural and other purposes.

• 0920

In 1997 a report by LGL Limited, which I mentioned earlier, makes the same point about the Nass Valley eagles, which nest and gather close to the proposed 27-kilometre Nisga'a highway extension. The report states that next to grizzly bears, the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the highway project on bald eagles will be the most substantial. Direct impacts include the removal of large trees that function as, or have the potential to function as, nest sites, perch sites for fishing, and roosts. Past timber harvesting and clearing of the power line right-of-way removed a considerable number of trees that were undoubtedly very suitable for bald eagles. Further losses of large trees will have direct and cumulative impacts on bald eagles and will lower the suitability of the area for nesting and perching.

In the trust's opinion there are three other legitimate reasons for listing the bald eagle. Long-term toxicological studies conducted in populated parts of British Columbia and Ontario by Canadian Wildlife Service scientists show that the bird is sensitive to environmental contaminants in areas associated with industry and agriculture. As a top predator of fish, fish-eating birds, and wildfowl, it performs a very useful role for us as an environmental watchman, and we surely need to repay it with an appropriate level of protection.

Furthermore, the bird is an excellent indicator of abundant fish stocks. This is evident in the lower Nass Valley where some 20 pairs nest along the tidal stretches of the river. Canada really needs to conserve locally dense populations of eagles as benchmarks for comparison with less productive fish-bearing waters.

An equally important consideration is the fact that the bald eagle has great cultural significance for the first nations of Canada's Pacific coast. Aboriginal legends tell how the eagle heralds the arrival of life-sustaining salmon shoals. The eagle also features prominently in many other traditional stories and is displayed as a crest on ceremonial regalia, masks, and totem poles.

Norman Tait, the renowned Eagle Clan master carver of the Nisga'a Nation, expressed his feelings in these words when I asked why eagles are important to him. This is what he said:

They're my ancestors. They represent my ancestors. They're the identity of my ancestors. ... My ancestors decorated themselves with feathers and eagle images to identify themselves among the Wolf and the Killer Whale and the Raven Clans. They're my ancestors. ... I don't bow to them. I like them. They're my strength. ...

Finally, the trust wishes to express support for the bill's intention to promote stewardship schemes for rare and threatened species. It is vital that appropriate schemes are devised to allow young men and women from aboriginal communities to rediscover their ancestral lands and to develop useful long-term stewardship skills. This is especially important where high unemployment rates are a daily fact of life. The ability to identify habitats for the conservation of migratory birds, rare mammals, spawning fish, birds of prey, and sensitive plant communities and then contribute these findings to treaty-related interim protection measures and post-treaty projects will give young aboriginal people a sense of achievement. It will also foster a life-long interest in sustainable development of the resources of their lands. But perhaps the most important achievement of carefully designed stewardship programs on first nation lands will be to maintain cultural diversity, and this is one of Canada's great strengths.

I wish to conclude my presentation by reading a short statement sent to me by Guujaaw, president of the Council of the Haida Nation. His words convey more powerfully than anything I can say how species conservation and aboriginal culture are interconnected. These are his words:

Haida culture is the relationship of our people to the sum total of all the lands around us. We are of the Raven or Eagle Clans, and our livelihood like our winged brothers and sisters, depends on the well-being of the lands around us. Every day as we live here, we live alongside the ravens, the eagles, the clams, the trees, the fish, the whales and the bears. To change the lands around us through the destruction of our lands would be to leave us empty, not unlike the relocation projects of a century ago. ... We aren't interested in saving our lands so much for the tourists as for our culture, for a thousand years to come. It is not possible to put any one thing in isolation. For instance an eagle will not survive only because it has a nesting tree, nor a falcon with its eyrie. They need their food source. The falcon needs murrelets who nest in the old-growth forest. Our primary objective is in saving large tracts of land for all of the things mentioned.

• 0925

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one final point. It's evident that Canada must look to its first nations for the delivery of effective long-term programs for the conservation of migratory birds and species at risk. I therefore wish to recommend that the Species at Risk Act be amended to allow an independent first nations advisory committee to be established. The committee will be responsible for sharing the best traditional and modern scientific conservation practices among first nations. It will also advise COSEWIC, the provinces, and the Government of Canada on practical action required to protect species at risk. Only through such a vehicle will first nations be able to ensure that they can honour the commitments already made by Canada through international agreements to promote biodiversity and the conservation of transboundary species.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Orchel, first of all, for coming such a long way to make your presentation, from London, I understand. Thank you for making it in such an interesting manner and for the points you raised. Thank you also also for the background music you chose in connection with your film—I believe it was Puccini's Turandot—and for giving us these interesting observations. I'm sure there will be questions.

We'll now move to Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner, as you know, is a distinguished former parliamentarian. He was a member of Parliament for Ottawa West, I believe. The floor is yours.

Mr. Barry Turner (Director, Government Relations, Ducks Unlimited Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your generosity is exceeded only by your years of dedication to our environment. I thank you for welcoming me back to Parliament Hill. It's a pleasure to be here.

I'm the director of government relations for Ducks Unlimited Canada in Ottawa. That's a new position for me, and it's a new position as of December 1999 for Ducks Unlimited.

I'm also the chairman of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, and I remind you that some day you will all be eligible to join the association I'm chairing.

Mr. Chairman, Ducks Unlimited Canada would like to compliment this committee for the dedication and independence you have all shown. We believe this bodes well for the health of our parliamentary legislative process.

We sent you our written comments on Bill C-5 a couple of weeks ago, and we trust you've had a chance to review them.

As most of you know, Ducks Unlimited Canada is a national non-profit conservation organization. Our mission is to conserve wetlands and associated habitats for the benefit of North America's waterfowl, which in turn provide healthy environments for other wildlife and people. As we say at Ducks Unlimited, we are more than ducks.

Our company has been functioning since 1938 and has conserved almost four million acres of Canadian habitat. We have developed partnerships with 19,000 private, corporate, and government landowners throughout the country. We have 150,000 supporters, 7,000 dedicated volunteers, and over 800 fundraising events annually that contribute to our almost $80 million annual budget.

Market research conducted by Angus Reid in 1995 and 1998 revealed that Ducks Unlimited is “Canada's most trusted and respected conservation company”.

• 0930

Mr. Chairman, I now ask my colleague, Dr. Brian Gray, to address Bill C-5.

Thank you.

Mr. Brian T. Gray (Director, Conservation Programs, Ducks Unlimited Canada): Thank you.

We believe that wildlife conservation, whether focused on species at risk or not, demands large-scale, landscape-based habitat conservation programs. Our ongoing activities are ample evidence that we practise what we preach.

Ducks Unlimited is concerned, as are most Canadians, that the list of wildlife species at risk continues to grow in our country. We are therefore supportive of the need for federal legislation to protect species at risk. We believe the primary focus of efforts to protect Canada's wildlife species must be on conserving and restoring the habitats on which they depend. Canada's ongoing efforts to protect species at risk should be balanced with habitat conservation activities that prevent additional species from being added to the list.

Furthermore, we believe that the future of conservation in southern Canada, including species at risk, will be played out on private lands. Hence, new federal initiatives such as meaningful tax incentives for conservation gifts, landowner stewardship programs, and a conservation set-aside program in heavily modified agricultural zones, similar to the hugely successful conservation reserve program in the United States, are all needed to protect species at risk and to prevent common species from becoming at risk.

Furthermore, based on our 63 years of experience working with private landowners, we believe they will happily play a major role in the conservation of all wildlife, including species at risk, if they're provided with technical assistance and if the economic costs are shared with society.

As any legislation, Bill C-5 is not perfect. We're pleased to see the emphasis on habitat and stewardship in this bill. We also know that some environmental organizations are concerned by the number of discretionary decisions to be made by the ministerial or cabinet levels. While we're not totally comfortable ourselves with some of the discretionary decisions, on balance, we acknowledge that the final decisions should be made by our elected officials. As long as ministerial and cabinet decisions are in the public record, we are hopeful that the public will hold these duly elected officials accountable for their decisions in the spirit of the bill and in recognition of other societal needs.

I have a few comments on the bill, specifically regarding the clauses on the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, as we call it, and also regarding the clauses under “Reviews and Reports” and the “List of Wildlife Species at Risk”.

In our prepared comments we noted that we're not totally comfortable, as I mentioned earlier, with the discretionary process for listing of species by our elected officials. Today we'd like to go on record and state that we believe that the listing process should be a science-based listing process. Specifically, COSEWIC's listing decisions must be added to the legal list.

However, we suggest this list could then be subject to a time-limited cabinet veto process with justifications for the veto. That is to say, the clock then would be ticking for a decision to delist a species rather than the proposed process where the clock is ticking for a decision to list a species.

A similar process is actually outlined in subclause 130(3) on page 63 of the bill for the classification of species listed in schedule 1. In short, we believe this process would still place the final listing decision in the hands of our elected officials, but it would protect species at risk from government acquiescence.

I have a specific comment on “Measures to Protect Listed Wildlife Species”. Under this heading the bill contains general prohibitions on the damage or destruction of residences, but does not specifically address “critical habitats”, as defined on page 4 of the definitions.

On page 2 of the preamble, the bill states:

the habitat of species at risk is key to their conservation,

Hence, for wildlife species, it seems that a species' source of food, water, and cover are not protected under the general prohibitions.

• 0935

This concern can be alleviated if the wording in clause 57 is changed to the following:

The competent minister must,

—rather than may—

establish codes of practice, national standards or guidelines with respect to the protection of critical habitat.

This revision still provides the government with much leeway. Without this revision, critical habitats are not really protected by the bill, and the bill as such won't really seriously protect species at risk.

Regarding recovery strategies in the clauses under “Recovery of Endangered, Threatened and Extirpated Species”, we strongly encourage, whenever possible, the adoption of a multi-species or ecosystem approach. By adopting landscape-level approaches, the process would benefit many species through the protection of intact and functional ecological systems.

Finally, I have a specific comment on the “Protection of Critical Habitat” section. In addition to my earlier comments on the mandatory codes of practice, standards, or guidelines for the protection of critical habitat, we'd like to address the issue of compensation. We believe that compensation should be based on a principle of fairness. Canada's commitment to protecting habitats is a societal value shared by all Canadians.

The cost of this value should be borne by all Canadians, and not only those landowners who may be affected. However, one must not take a money-tree approach either. Most Canadians, we believe, do not expect compensation for doing the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. It is only an adverse impact and the economic loss flowing from that impact that must be compensated.

Compensation must be provided to any landowner or land manager who suffers a loss due to an extraordinary impact from the application of this bill; otherwise, the government runs the risk of creating a disincentive for species at risk conservation.

If our comments and revisions are incorporated, we believe the bill will be effective as long as industry, conservation organizations, private landowners, and provincial, territorial, and federal governments work cooperatively to protect species at risk and to keep common species common.

We believe the most significant contribution the federal government can make to species at risk is to coordinate, fund, and develop initiatives designed to conserve landscapes and ecosystems, especially in areas with large blocks of private lands. The recent development of the federal stewardship fund has been a very positive step, albeit a small one.

The habitats of many species at risk occur on private lands, and private lands are an essential component of biodiversity conservation. We urge the Government of Canada to place a greater priority on developing meaningful incentives for landowners, especially agricultural producers, to become wildlife stewards.

We have included a concept paper as an appendix to our comments. Last week Mr. Turner and I testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Our total testimony was based on this concept paper, and it was very well received.

In closing, we believe the proactive, forward-thinking approaches by the federal government will not only save tax dollars today, but will also greatly alleviate the number of expensive recovery efforts in the future.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

The Cochrane Ecological Institute please.

Ms. Clio Smeeton (Chair, Cochrane Ecological Institute): Thank you very much for having me. I've never been to Ottawa before.

The Cochrane Ecological Institute was established in Alberta in 1971 with the express purpose of undertaking ecosystem restoration through the breeding of endangered species for reintroduction and release into their historic North American range, because habitat preservation, without the indigenous wildlife that makes it a viable whole, is a sterile exercise.

In 1972 the CEI founded the first captive breeding colony in Canada of the extirpated swift fox, an endeavour that has resulted in a first for Canada. The Canadian swift fox reintroduction program, which has re-established this animal, resulted in its downlisting from extirpated in Canada to endangered in Canada in 1978.

This reintroduction program has been highlighted by Liberal government ministers Sergio Marchi and Sheila Copps in international forums.

• 0940

At present the CEI is in a five-year partnership with the Blackfeet Nation in Montana. We are undertaking the first reintroduction of this extirpated species in the U.S.A. As a result of this 30 years of experience, we are now an internationally acknowledged centre of expertise on the reintroduction of wildlife.

I have some general comments on the bill.

The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council is composed, once the bill is passed, of federal and provincial ministers, similar to the CCME. It is our concern that such a high-level committee could be slow to respond to the many requirements for approvals in the act. This is even more critical in light of the timelines imposed by the bill on certain actions to be taken by the council or minister.

The term “consultation” is used extensively throughout the legislation in more than 26 sections and subsections. In short, the implementation of this bill depends upon consultation, but the meaning of consultation has not been defined within the legislation, and so we hope that the process of consultation will be specifically outlined in regulation.

Clause 13 deals with funding, but nowhere in the bill or its associated material is the source of funding mentioned. Voluntary funding is mentioned, but voluntary funding is not a secure source, and any long-term project has to have a secure source of funding. We have intimate experience with this. With the continual erosion and downloading of government responsibility onto lower levels and NGOs, this lack of identified and dedicated funding does not inspire confidence in the ability of Canada to adequately and continually protect species at risk.

A fourth point is that the legislation should specifically outline who would nominate members of COSEWIC for appointment by the minister. This could then be adopted as a true co-management approach: for example, six nominees from the first nations, six from the academic communities, six from NGOs, six from industry, and six from the government. This would be more acceptable to Canadians as a whole, as it would reduce the possibility of political patronage in these appointments.

Clause 18 should be more specific on the composition of subcommittees for each species and should identify who will pay for this subcommittee work.

Clauses 32 and 33 are of limited value except in the north. In addition, clause 33 does not provide any protection to habitat, only the actual residence of the species.

The provision of orders under clause 34 will be rare and time consuming and will not provide protection to endangered species in the provinces.

Clauses 37 to 43 suggest that the minister would develop recovery strategies in cooperation with other competent ministers and groups and suggests a committee structure. This is by far the better approach than that of RENEW, as many recovery teams have been ineffectual due to the dominance of a limited number of individuals who bring no specific species expertise to the teams. In addition the most important groups in the implementation of any action plans—landowners, first nations, and species experts—are virtually absent from many of the present recovery teams.

The weakness of this approach is that the responsibility for all recovery strategies falls upon the federal ministers. This will put a particular burden upon these individuals. Again the bill does not speak of funding for this work, and it will probably be expensive.

The provision of timelines for recovery strategy is a most positive step. This aggressive approach may not be possible with the limited federal staff presently assigned to dealing with endangered species. Does the legislation come with guarantees of significant additional increases in federal staff to implement the bill?

The separation of action plan and recovery strategy is very positive. The lack of a timeframe for the action plan is a negative aspect of the legislation. In addition, the lack of a financial commitment to the action plan is negative. If government, as has been our experience, does not specifically allocate or dedicate funding for use in attaining a stated goal, it is not within the mandate nor job description of civil servants to obtain that funding from other sources. Government only pays for work it wants done.

• 0945

The legislated requirements to monitor the progress of action plans is paramount to the success of legislation. It does, however, put an increased financial and personnel requirement upon the government. Does this mean there will be new money for the implementation and management of this legislation?

The habitat protection provisions of the bill are totally dependent upon the consultation on species with provincial ministers. This has not been a positive approach in the past, and it substantially weakens the bill. This significant weakness could be improved if the bill defined in detail the meaning of consultation and provided for an actual consultation process in regulation.

In the rest of this material, which I'm sure you have, there's a huge table roughly about what happened with the swift fox and how the bill would change it. But I'll skip it, because if you want to read it, you can, and then you can ask me questions about it, too. Sorry, but there are pages and pages of it.

Anyway, we have some proposals to strengthen this bill.

On the structure of COSEWIC, under the present bill, COSEWIC will not be an independent scientific advisory body. As the present bill stands, the structure of COSEWIC will be open to potential abuse through patronage and politically motivated appointments. Only open to it—nobody says it will happen. This potential abuse can be avoided if the structure of COSEWIC is a true co-management one, comprising equal representation from the governments—territorial, provincial, and federal—the academic community, NGOs, industry, and the first nations.

This type of co-management approach is used very successfully under the newer land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories. It provides for equal input from all the parties in decision-making. It is also more acceptable to many Canadians as a whole, because it reduces, as I said before, the possibility of patronage, as each participating sector nominates their own representatives for the minister to appoint.

In this case, the following suggestion could be made: six people from government—one from the territories, one from B.C., one from the prairie provinces, one from Ontario and Quebec, one from the Maritimes, and one from the federal government; six academics nominated for regional representation by the AUCC; six NGOs chosen from nominations submitted by individual NGOs to the minister; six from industry, one from each of the following industries—oil and gas, agriculture, mining, forestry, including pulp and paper, manufacturing, and fishing; and six first nations people nominated as regional representatives by the Assembly of First Nations. This could provide for a diversity of sector and temporal representation necessary to have a balanced and productive group. It would also provide sufficient members to chair the individual committees for specific reviews.

We also have a recommendation for funding activities under SARA. In order to persuade the disparate groups that influence and affect habitat and wildlife to work together constructively, we feel it is essential that there be a large and sufficient sum of money earmarked specifically for ecosystem restoration—a sum that is dedicated to this aim and not part of general revenue. Without a specifically earmarked sum for this work, consultation or negotiation with the provinces as set out in SARA is unlikely to work. It clearly has not worked in the past.

It is also essential that all jurisdictions, both provincial and federal, should contribute to the fund for ecosystem restoration. They would be stakeholders. The provincial contribution could be in proportion to the GNP of each province. In addition, commercial and agriculture organizations operating on crown land or having a significant and identifiable effect upon the environment should also pay a certain tariff into the dedicated fund for ecosystem restoration.

• 0950

The concept of ecosystem restoration could be wide ranging and include habitat, species, biomes, biota, air-water legislation, field research, and education. All stakeholders would be working in ecosystem restoration. Federal, provincial, and NGO academics and consultants could be eligible to apply for funding.

Funding for these projects would not be limited by time, but should be allocated on the anticipated length of time each project would take to complete. Funding decisions would be made by COSEWIC, but the fund would be administered by the federal government only and not by any other organization or NGO. There's no possibility that SARA will provide the requisite protection and conservation of Canada's endangered species and their habitat, to our mind, without a fund specifically earmarked for the purpose.

We recommend defining consultation. Consultation is the means for the success of the bill. Therefore it must be defined and have a process outlined in the regulation. The definition must have four components.

First, it must make provision for consistent and complete information to all parties who must be consulted or are a part of the consultation process. The reason we're banging on about this has to do with our experience. The Swift Fox Recovery Team held its meetings in camera from 1991 to 1994, which is a very weird thing to do. And throughout it has failed to provide information to, or to inform, all members of its intentions. This shows how it doesn't work unless you make certain this is in the bill.

Second, consultation must include the provision of sufficient time for all parties to review and comment upon the information provided.

Third, a forum for impartial discussion of the responses to the information is needed.

And fourth, the process should include the consideration and inclusion of the comments received into the decision. Definitions of consultation have already been provided in other pieces of legislation. Examples are already in place, i.e., the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

To make the process work in a timely fashion, the processes defined in the legislation should be outlined in regulations. This would include such items as the content and form of information provided; the nature and structure of meetings; a dispute-resolution process; and the inclusion of materials in the public registry. Once the above processes are defined and are in place, the comfort level with the decisions and the acceptance of the decisions by the Canadian public would, in our opinion, be substantially enhanced.

Thank you very much indeed for listening to me.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smeeton.

It would have been a bit easier to follow you if we had had a copy of your text, but perhaps—

Ms. Clio Smeeton: You should have had it.

The Chair: —you could make it available to the clerk so he can reproduce it.

Ms. Clio Smeeton: I sent it to you ages ago, and they should have translated and circulated it.

The Chair: Something went missing—

Ms. Clio Smeeton: Oh dear.

The Chair: —in the process. I'm sorry about that.

From the New Brunswick Federation of Naturalists we have Sabine Dietz.

Would you like to proceed?

Ms. Sabine Dietz (Member, New Brunswick Federation of Naturalists): Yes.

Thank you for inviting us here as a witness before the standing committee.

My name is Sabine Dietz. I'm the co-director of the Piper Project, a special-approach program of the New Brunswick Federation of Naturalists. We've worked on the Acadian Peninsula—a very French area in New Brunswick—for the last 13 years on on-the-ground conservation and protection of endangered species and coastal ecosystems. The initiative we're spearheading is entirely NGO driven, but has many partners—federal, provincial, and non-governmental.

I'll divide my presentation into two parts. First I'll show you a bit of what we do on the ground. The second part will be a critical look at Bill C-5, with some of our recommendations.

I've provided a brief. It's only in English. I assume it will be translated, and you'll be provided with it as well.

Our work in the last 13 years has concentrated on the piping plover, endangered and on the COSEWIC list since 1985. It's a very small shore bird that nests on the beaches of the Atlantic provinces, and in the prairie provinces as well.

• 0955

What we do on the ground and have done for the last 13 years is a lot education. I'll circulate these pictures so you can have a look. I don't have any slides or anything.

What we basically started out with was trying to protect the bird. The bird is endangered mainly because of human disturbance around its nesting area and when the young are out, when the young have hatched. We basically try to alert people to the presence of this bird, talk to the beach owners, set up symbolic centres to alert people so that they don't go too close to the nest sites. We hire in the area each year something like 20 youths and unemployed people to help us with that, which has a snowball effect in the communities. Basically, the word gets out and people are aware of that bird.

We do education in schools. We do a lot of school programs. We bring our mascot, which is the piping plover, out on the streets, away from its habitat. You'll see it in the pictures that I'll hand around.

The Chair: Ms. Dietz, I hate to interrupt you, but you come from the only Canadian province that is officially bilingual.

Ms. Sabine Dietz: That's correct.

The Chair: It would have been very helpful if you would have provided us with a text in both official languages.

Ms. Sabine Dietz: That's correct as well.

The Chair: We cannot circulate your text because it is not in both official languages; therefore francophone members—

Ms. Sabine Dietz: Yes, but you also have to understand that we're a non-profit group. We don't necessarily have the funding available to do everything bilingual, because it does take time and quite a bit of money to translate material.

The Chair: If we had received the text ahead of time, we could have translated it, since it is fairly short.

Ms. Sabine Dietz: I'm aware of that, and I apologize.

What we do on the ground in New Brunswick complements the work and the mandate of the recovery team. There has been a recovery team in existence for at least 12 or 13 years.

As to our comments on the act, our critique of the act, first, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act needs to be triggered by the presence of endangered species. This could be done easily by an amendment to Bill C-5. Right now, the presence of an endangered species, a species at risk that's on the COSEWIC list, does not cause the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to be triggered.

I also have to say that New Brunswick has an endangered species act, and the piping plover is on the list for that act. Our provincial endangered species act protects the habitat, so our provincial act is a lot stronger than the proposed Bill C-5, and we believe, due to that, the federal government actually neglects its responsibility for protecting endangered species. Our act is stronger. The question is always whether it's enforced or not, but on paper it is stronger.

Our next point is that the piping plover is a migratory bird. It is protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. However, according to Bill C-5, it is clearly stated that the habitat of that bird is not protected. Piping plovers come under federal jurisdiction, as is stated in the Migratory Birds Convention Act, so the habitat needs to be mandatorily protected under Bill C-5 as well, as it is under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Basically, in New Brunswick, work that has gone on on endangered species, species at risk, has been carried out by non-governmental organizations. In the field, they do protection of its habitat; they carry out stewardship education; they do all the action work that is needed to recover endangered species. The non-governmental organizations are absolutely crucial in the recovery of any endangered species in Canada—and again, I'm particularly talking about New Brunswick. Without the work of non-governmental organizations, there would be no recovery actions to date.

Also, again specifically limited to New Brunswick and our experience, the governments are not prepared to work within the limits of the non-governmental organizations. This takes a lot of time, it takes commitment, and it takes political will, which is presently not there. Already, in the wake of the proposed bill, protocols, guidelines, and policies are being developed by the federal government in isolation of the people on the ground who have been working on this for, for example, 13 or 14 years. They have the experience. They should be right there up front in developing those guidelines and protocols.

• 1000

The importance of non-governmental organizations is not acknowledged anywhere in Bill C-5. They're only considered a tool, but they're not considered a major player. In our opinion, the federal government clearly has a problem dealing with non-governmental organizations. At the same time, as I mentioned, non-governmental organizations are a major player in carrying out actions and the recovery plans that are established for each species. This important role of non-governmental organizations needs to be more clearly stated and supported by the act. Non-governmental organizations need to play a very important role throughout the implementation of recovery actions, policy development, and recovery planning for species at risk.

I have some very specific examples. In subclause 7(1), NGOs have to be represented on the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council—for example, the national organizations.

In subclause 16(1), COSEWIC absolutely needs to include representatives of the NGO community. Again, they're the ones who are carrying out the work. They need to be right there at the start as major players.

In subclause 39(1), when the recovery strategy is being developed, there's a list of all sorts of consultation organizations that need to be consulted—provincial governments, and so on. In the last paragraph of that clause, paragraph 39(1)(e), it is mentioned that the minister can invite other groups and organizations that are considered appropriate to participate in the program. This is not appropriate. It has to be entrenched in the act that NGOs need to be right there developing the recovery strategies. It is actually crucial.

It's the same thing in paragraph 48(1)(e) when the action plan gets developed. It only happens when the minister considers it appropriate that our organizations or groups are being consulted. Again, NGOs need to be right there. It has to be entrenched that they must be consulted, especially the groups and organizations that have played a role in trying to recover or are recovering a species.

So these are my very short comments. There are a few more in the brief that you will receive. I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dietz, for bringing your experience to the table.

Mr. Bradstreet, I understand you have a text in both official languages.

Mr. Michael Bradstreet (Executive Director, Bird Studies in Canada): I do.

The Chair: Would you mind distributing it so that the members can follow you as you speak?

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: If that's your wish.

The Chair: Yes, it is. Is the text available?

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: Yes. I gave it to the clerk.

I'm sorry, I thought I would leave the text and not have you follow it while I was speaking, but that's your preference. I'm going to jump all over, so you're going to have to keep up.

The Chair: Don't worry. Please proceed.

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: Thank you for the opportunity to present my organization's views on Bill C-5, also known as SARA.

Bird Studies Canada is an independent scientific organization founded in 1960. Our mission is to advance the understanding, appreciation, and conservation of Canada's wild birds and their habitats through studies that engage the skills, enthusiasm, and support of our members, volunteers, staff, and the interested public.

Currently, 10,000 citizen scientists voluntarily participate in BSC's bird conservation and research programs. We have a small professional staff and a small budget. A voluntary board of directors and a national council of prominent ornithologists and conservationists guide our affairs. Staff members of Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service sit on both BSC's board and national council.

We believe bird conservation depends on the public at large, especially landowners and resource managers, having a conservation ethic. Our role as an organization is to help educate and inform people with reliable data, analyses, and interpretations so that people can exercise responsible stewardship of wildlife.

• 1005

We produce a number of educational materials for landowners and we distribute these to owners of land on which endangered species in particular are located. There are copies of this item for you at the back of the room.

We are actively engaged in the conservation and recovery of endangered birds. I myself sit on the world council of BirdLife International, a global alliance of national conservation organizations working in more than 100 countries worldwide. BirdLife is recognized by the World Conservation Union as the authority on the status of the world's birds. BirdLife has just published Threatened birds of the world—this tome here. It is the official source for birds on the IUCN red list.

Since 1800, 103 bird species have gone extinct. That is more than 50 times the background level. Now 182 more species are on the brink of extinction with only a 50% chance of surviving over the next 10 years. On this list is Canada's Eskimo curlew, of which there have been no confirmed sightings since 1985.

So 1,186 bird species, a shocking 12% of the world's avian diversity, or one in eight species, has a real risk of becoming extinct in the next 100 years. Habitat loss and degradation are the major causes of endangerment in birds, threatening a total of 1,008 species.

In Canada I sit as one of the three non-governmental experts on COSEWIC. In addition, a BSC staff member is the co-chair of the species specialist group on birds. Of the 26 bird species listed as endangered or threatened under schedule 1 of SARA, Bird Studies Canada is actively engaged in the conservation of 16.

Whether funding the work of others, writing species status reports, participating in or leading recovery teams, effecting conservation activities on the ground, or communicating the needs of endangered species to landowners and resource managers, our staff and volunteers work day in and day out to save Canada's endangered and threatened birds.

Using global criteria and thresholds set by BirdLife International, we have identified about 600 sites in Canada that are critical to the conservation of Canada's birds; 136 of these have been identified for their importance to threatened or endangered species.

Perhaps even more important than our work with endangered birds is the work we do in monitoring population changes in other Canadian birds. As we are all learning, conserving birds at the risk of extinction is a costly undertaking. AS in medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Identifying serious declines in common species and reversing the causes of those declines, if human caused, is a far more cost-effective way to save Canada's birds than waiting to save the last few individuals.

As an example of this proactive approach, BSC coordinates a network of 15 bird monitoring stations across southern Canada from the Bay of Fundy to the southern tip of Vancouver Island. This network tracks population changes in over 100 high-priority bird species that from a global perspective nest primarily in northern Canada, where they would be difficult to monitor or assess in a cost-effective way. Our necklace of monitoring stations track the numbers of birds during migration. It's similar in concept to the DEW line; we have these stations that intercept the birds as they migrate north and south across the continent.

Using volunteer citizen scientists to count and trap and band the birds and sophisticated statistical analyses, we produce annual estimates of population levels in these 100 species and then over time track trends. So when there is a negative trend we advise wildlife management agencies and other partners. That is the right time to take conservation action, in our view.

Given our professional engagement in the listing and recovery of endangered species and the emphasis on preventative approaches and our army of volunteers, here are a few comments on SARA.

• 1010

I actually want to spend more time answering questions than reading material, and I think some of the points I've made today have already been made, not only today but probably over and over again to the committee, so I'd like to focus on two of the points that are contained in my brief.

The first is facilitating the contribution of citizen scientists. The act says that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture, take, possess or collect an individual of a listed species. Given these strong prohibitions and the potentially severe sanctions to offending parties, it would seem reasonable to define terms like “harm, harass, take, possess” and “collect”.

Is a Bird Studies Canada volunteer who checks a nest box erected to increase the population of an endangered species harming or harassing the species? Is a BSC staff person who captures a listed species during migration collecting or possessing a listed species?

We don't know what the extent of the prohibition is, and it would be helpful to citizen scientists across the country if those prohibitions were better defined.

Clauses 74 to 78 of the bill deal with agreements for permits and activities that, from our perspective, are key to the recovery of endangered species. Of concern is that a competent minister may enter into an agreement with or issue a permit only to a person and not to an organization.

As a citizen science-based organization in which volunteers constructively engage in conservation activities, does every single volunteer at our network of migration stations, probably more than 300 people annually, need to be permitted because he or she might trap and band a listed species? Does every BSC volunteer who checks a nest box, who erects an exclosure to minimize nest predation, or who manages a critical habitat, all activities mandated through a recovery strategy and action plan, require such a permit? How long will it take to get such permits? Why is it only in subclause 74(9) that organizations mandated under another act of Parliament are allowed to engage in activities affecting listed species? Would it not be more cost effective if SARA permitted agreements or permits between a competent minister and a competent organization?

I would like to speak about the definition of a residence, which you've heard about, I'm sure. Why does the bill propose to protect the residences of some types of wildlife and not all types? What is the residence of a fish? What is the residence of a butterfly? Taking of nests or eggs of all migratory birds, including those that are endangered, is already proscribed in article 5 of the protocol amending the 1916 convention. So what additional protection is SARA providing? My guess is that protecting the residences of some species is SARA's baby step towards the protection of critical habitat.

The goal of SARA is to protect, conserve, and restore listed species. In my view, this requires the protection of critical habitat. Protecting the nest of a bird is a woefully inadequate response to protecting either individuals of listed species or their critical habitat.

Here is a current example of the inadequacy of protecting a species by protecting its residence. I live in southern Ontario, and under Ontario's Endangered Species Act, the bald eagle is listed as endangered. Less than a mile from my home was an active bald eagle nest. This spring, shortly after the young in the nest hatched, the landowner cut down all the fencerow in which the eagles' nest tree was located. Only the next tree and one adjacent tree were left standing. The adults subsequently deserted their nest and one dead young was later found in the nest.

If bald eagles were a listed species under SARA, would the landowner have been guilty of an offence? No residence was destroyed. No adult bald eagle was harmed or killed. SARA contains no definition of “harassed”. There is no certain proof that the disturbance caused by the landowner resulted in the death of the young eagle, although common sense suggests so.

• 1015

If a threatened hooded warbler nests in a sapling in a southern Ontario woodlot and the woodlot is inappropriately harvested, the nesting attempt is doomed, whether the sapling is left standing or not. If an endangered burrowing owl nests in a pasture in southern Saskatchewan and the pasture is tilled, the breeding attempt is doomed, whether or not a minimal buffer was placed around the bird's residence. If the king rail nests in a wetland in southern Quebec and the wetland is drained, the breeding attempt is doomed, but no damage has been done to the bird's residence. Protecting only the residence of a listed species and not its critical habitat does very little to conserve endangered wildlife.

SARA is not an act to amend the Canadian Constitution, but one that makes it necessary for all parties to work toward common goals. Clause 53 states that for species covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the competent minister may make regulations that he or she considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing action plans. Nevertheless, I am of the view that protecting critical habitat of endangered and threatened species should at least be mandatory for the federal government in areas of federal jurisdiction, with the only proviso being fair compensation to private landowners when federally listed species occur.

On federal lands, the protection of critical habitat should be mandatory. Clauses 57 to 64 contain 11 examples where a minister may, or the Governor in Council may, protect habitat on federal lands. I would encourage the committee in its clause-by-clause examination to look to at least strengthening some of these so that the federal government is showing leadership in protecting endangered species habitat. Otherwise, you cannot expect anyone else—provinces, territories, aboriginal communities, corporations, or private landowners—to do so.

In summary, BSC commends the federal government for putting federal legislation in place. It has been a long time coming. No act is perfect and every act can be improved upon. There is much to commend in this act, but that has not been my purpose in appearing before you today. Rather, I hope I've drawn your attention to some opportunities to improve the act. Make no mistake, this act is better than no act. Some amendments would make it a much better act.

BSC members, 10,000 volunteers, staff, and board, want to continue to work in partnership with you to conserve Canada's native biodiversity. We are committed to doing so. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bradstreet, particularly, for bringing many practical examples to our committee.

So you can go home with one positive reassurance, I would ask Ms. Douglas to reply to the concern you have expressed, in relation to the minister entering into an agreement with a person or organization, so you will understand the meaning of the word “person”.

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): In relation to the wording in clause 74, the fact that the clause refers to an agreement with a person doesn't limit the clause to an agreement with a single human being. The word “person” in law, encompasses other legally recognized entities, like organizations and corporations, as long as they're legally recognizable.

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: Interestingly, though, elsewhere in the act, organizations are referred to. In this particular clause, the absence of the word “organization” leads one to worry that it has been excluded for purposeful reasons, rather than definition reasons. That's all. It's great.

The Chair: We have taken good note of your comment, Mr. Bradstreet.

We have time for a good round of questions for five minutes each. We start today with Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, and guests. This is my fourth committee meeting this week. I must say it has been a very enjoyable one.

• 1020

Mr. Chairman, I intend to briefly do a summation with a thought for each of the members. I'll throw out a question that doesn't have to be answered now. Perhaps some time during the course of the meeting, or right afterward, it will be.

I'm going to speak very briefly in the order in which you have spoken.

Jack, I loved what you had to say. I know all about the Nass Valley from having served up there. When you were talking, I could even smell the oolichans. Yes, it was a very exciting time for me. I went back years after to see what was going on in the village where I served and taught. New Aiyansh is now on the south side. That will probably give you some idea of my age.

There was one key thing you mentioned. I'm not on this committee. I'm filling in for a very eminent member of this committee. You said B.C., the federal government, and the Nisga'a people are working together. I want to assure you that is a very key statement. Not only in lands that are already native lands, but in the future development of increasing native lands, it must be a very strong component. If it isn't included, this act will not be successful. It must be assured within the act. I think it will be with cooperation.

Mr. Turner, I come from Saskatchewan. I know Ducks Unlimited is part of Saskatchewan. The other group, of course, is the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. With the two together, I am sure a higher percentage of people in Saskatchewan than any other province belong to some naturalist organization and conservation measure. Your organization is very key and is very positive.

I know you do run into some negative times as well in dealing with the adjacent farmland, and so on. I would suggest to you, sir, that you make yourself available to this committee more than just once. It's a key issue and will be a key issue as this bill is drafted. I appreciate your remarks.

Dr. Gray, you've mentioned the amendments and the formula. I want to particularly zero in on compensation. Unless it is clearly within the bill itself, with some kind of a formula for fairness, you are not going to get cooperation.

Let's take the burrowing owl. You will see the farmer take a whole large space. He'll do it voluntarily. The farmers and ranchers are so conservation-minded that it is there. They know what it's all about. If it's going to be permanent and enlarged, then you cannot afford to do so without some compensation. I'm particularly pleased you mentioned compensation.

Clio, I enjoyed your presentation. There's a historical thing with me and the swift fox. When you study the history of the early part of western Canada, of course, I believe the swift fox was also called the kit fox. I'm not sure. Historically, I remember if people moving onto the prairies stayed overnight and some of the harness was near the fox, they would find the harness chewed up. The fox loved not only the salt, but the salt from the horses sweating in the harness.

I followed your project with a great deal of interest. I say this to all of you and to my colleagues. I would hope the NGOs, when this bill is passed, don't become an endangered species. In order for this act to be successful, we have to have the ongoing work of the NGOs. Although the act is successful, the NGO work should not come to an end.

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you're leaving very little time for responses.

Mr. Roy Bailey: They don't have to answer me now.

The Chair: I see.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's fine. I just want to finish. I think I made that clear, Mr. Chairman.

From New Brunswick, you did one thing that really pleased me. You brought the youth into this. I hope all the other NGOs take the time to do this. I know that in the Endangered Species Act they dwell on bringing the youth into it. I appreciate what you said there.

• 1025

Finally, as to the bird count, the most valuable thing you have to give is not only in regard to the count going down, but also the reasons why a count may be going up.

My five minutes are almost up. Those are general points, and you don't have to answer them now, but I hope to get an answer from each one of you, maybe after everybody has had a turn.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. That's very kind of you.

Monsieur Dubé, followed by Madam Carroll, Madam Redman, and Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

I would ask you to please abide by our five minute time limit.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): The questions I have are similar to Mr. Bailey's. I am standing in for the Bloc Québécois member who is a permanent member of this committee. I will do the best I can, but I am certainly no expert in this field.

My first question is for Mr. Bradstreet. You are a member of the board of directors of BirdLife International. Would you tell us please of any countries that have adopted legislation in this area and from whose example we might benefit.

[English]

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: No. I think Canada's Constitution is unusual in the world, in that habitat conservation is a shared responsibility between the federal government and very strong regional governments, in our case provinces and territories. That doesn't seem to be a model that is present in other countries that have endangered species acts. So while it's easy to say that we should model ourselves after the United States or we should model ourselves after Great Britain, they actually have a constitutionally different way of dealing with land, which facilitates their federal government's role in threatened and endangered species conservation.

I think that given the constitutional structure of this country, we do have to work together and not impose one jurisdiction's competence onto another.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do you see that as an advantage? If they succeed in cooperating, it could be a very good thing. At least two governments are interested. Is that an advantage or is it quite the opposite?

[English]

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: It's heck to work with sometimes, but I think what our model does provide is examples of success. If we had a “one size fits all” approach to protecting endangered species, we would not have an opportunity of learning that New Brunswick is doing something better, or Alberta is doing something worse or better. I think our model does allow creative learning among the various provinces in regard to improving their own legislation and programs, learning from each other or from the federal government.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would now like to speak of the provinces. You mentioned that New Brunswick and Alberta have put into place some sound legislation. Quebec, too, has legislated in this field. Is the same true of all the provinces or are there some that have yet to introduce legislation?

[English]

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: I don't believe all provinces yet do have legislation in place, and even with those that do have legislation in place, it is often not significant. I would point out that Quebec's legislation has resulted in the lifting of almost no species. So there is a framework there for protection of endangered species, but it's not being applied very effectively. I think that SARA itself has raised the heat on all the provinces to review their legislation and improve it.

• 1030

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: My next question is directed to anyone who might care to answer. You have stated that even if we acted on this right away, it is highly probable that 50% of the endangered species will become extinct anyway within the next hundred years. That is why it is so important to choose carefully what we are going to do and to allocate to those initiatives the necessary resources. What I understand from what you have all said is that we are not putting into this the resources that are required.

Do you think that by investing those 90 million dollars, the federal government is doing enough? If not, how much would be required?

[English]

Ms. Clio Smeeton: If you act to protect species, even though they are, as in the case of the swift fox, extinct in Canada, you can successfully recover them. We've done it. We've shown that you can take an animal that no longer exists in Canada, breed it, reintroduce it, and it will be established. If we act now, there is a possibility that the animals and birds, the wildlife, plants, and everything can be saved, at least a significant proportion of them.

But you are exactly right, there's not enough funding. The funding is not addressed in this bill. My feeling is that if we had proportionate funding from all stakeholders, that is, the federal government, the provinces, and those industries—mining, fishing, agriculture—that do significantly affect the environment, along with the municipalities, as they do too, we would have a fund to which all people could apply. The evaluation of each project applying for funding would be done by COSEWIC. Those considered useful by COSEWIC would be granted funding, significant funding, that would enable them to complete whatever it is they set out to do.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Smeeton.

Madam Redman, in your intervention you might consider including a brief statement on compensation for the benefit of Mr. Dubé's question.

Mr. Dubé, you asked about legislation in other provinces, and Mr. Bradstreet has attempted to answer. The Province of Quebec has legislation, of course. That legislation has produced on the COSEWIC list, the list of endangered and threatened species, some 26 items. Of these the province has decided only to list three. In other words, only 12% of the scientific list has been politically approved by the Province of Quebec. That is the lowest percentage in the whole of Canada, except for British Columbia. To give you an idea, Ontario, which is next door, has a scientific list of 74, of which 17 have been approved, which is at least twice as good as the record for the Province of Quebec.

The next one is Madam Carroll, followed by Madam Redman.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman...

The Chair: No. I would ask you to save that for the second round of questions?

Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'd like to direct this question to Ducks Unlimited. I'd like you to address for us and for the record, if you would, the question of the alternate dispute resolution process, which, as you know, is not within the bill. It has given a number of us cause for concern. We did hear from the Canadian Bar Association, which put forward a proposal for an ADR mechanism. It's one they have had some discussion with other stakeholders on. In fact, their approach is supported by the mining and forestry industries and other sectors. What I want to know is whether or not you would be willing to support that.

• 1035

Mr. Brian Gray: Yes, in concept we do support an alternative review process, an arbitration process, if you will, between environmental and industrial or governmental groups. We do not, as you know from our testimony several years ago, support the notion of civil suits.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You're drawing a distinction between an ADR mechanism that's put forward perhaps by the bar and citizen suits.

Mr. Brian Gray: There needs to be a process to protect industries, landowners, land managers from frivolous suits by well-intentioned individuals who might not be knowledgeable about ecological processes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But while we protect the groups you've mentioned, how are we to ensure the enforcement of the act? I think you're taking an off ramp, to use my children's language—

Mr. Brian Gray: What do you mean by that?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I just think that's a safe response. Please don't feel prosecuted here.

Mr. Brian Gray: No.

The way I read the bill as it stands, there is a process whereby a citizen who sees something going wrong can make a case to the government that they believe there's something wrong. That's the way I read the bill as it stands, and we're comfortable with that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But would you be comfortable moving to the ADR proposal that the bar has put forward? So that you don't commit yourself today in a way you might regret, do you want to take a look at that proposal that came forward? You can get it through what we call the blues. Then maybe you can come back to us on that.

Mr. Brian Gray: That would be reasonable.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay. I would appreciate, then, your coming back to us on the record with your response.

Mr. Brian Gray: Okay.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have three questions and I'm anticipating you'll be as generous with your clock for my questions as you have proved yourself to be with the witnesses today. Welcome, all of you.

To touch just for a moment on compensation, which the chair asked me to do, this bill is predicated on the fact that we have species at risk right across this country, due in a large part to NGOs, to ranchers, to fishers, to Canadians who live on the land, to aboriginal peoples, who are, as we speak, exercising good stewardship, both for endangered species and for their habitats, or we wouldn't have a list, which is unfortunately up to 380 species at risk. It's built on cooperation with all of those groups, acknowledging the territorial and jurisdiction complications that exist with territories and provinces. It also incorporates aboriginal knowledge, I think in a very respectful way. As a matter of fact, we've had witnesses from the aboriginal community tell us that in some ways the consultation for this piece of legislation raised the bar, as far as they were concerned, as well as incorporating and respecting what they could bring to the table.

Building on this cooperation, we are encouraging stewardship. There's $85 million for stewardship set aside by the government. There's a backstop, which is the safety net. When a province is not acting in a way that's deemed appropriate, the minister can invoke the safety net and go in and say, you're not protecting species and their habitat in an appropriate way.

In addition to all this cooperation, there are two other mechanisms. One of them is the compensation piece that Dr. Pearse did in this study, which I assume most of you have seen. The minister has maintained all along that it's a great starting point for a discussion around how we provide compensation, which is fairly precedent-setting, but don't tip the balance so that it becomes a disincentive to all of the voluntary activity that clearly we've heard great testimony and great evidence of people doing right now.

• 1040

There is also litigation and fines for people who wilfully destroy endangered species and their habitat.

So the effort has been to have a comprehensive, balanced approach to a piece of legislation that will work on the ground.

I don't know if that speaks to what you were asking, Mr. Chair, but that would be my response to the previous question.

I actually have three questions, if time permits. I'd like to start with Mr. Turner. First of all, I welcome you to the table. It's nice to see you again.

Ducks Unlimited has incredible expertise in developing conservation agreements with landowners. How long do you think it would take to develop a conservation agreement with a landowner whose land is considered critical to the survival of a species at risk or a recovery of a listed, threatened, or endangered species, in your experience?

Mr. Barry Turner: I'm not the best one to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gray has been working with land agreements for many years with Ducks Unlimited. If you don't mind, Ms. Redman, I'll ask Dr. Gray to answer that.

Mr. Brian Gray: That's a good question in light of the discussion of compensation.

As Barry mentioned, we have had over 19,000 partnerships, mostly with private landowners, most of whom were producers. We have found generally that the rate of cooperation... it's all based on economics really. If it's tough economic times for an individual, it's very difficult for them to do something out of pocket, no matter how much they want to. So the rate of our involvement in the partnership, the rate of our bringing money to the table in the partnership with the landowner, is directly related to the importance to our mission and the amount we are taking, if you will, from that individual's capability to make economic gain from their property.

If it's a grazing system, for example, in the prairies, we have developed delayed grazing plots or systems where we actually have to compensate the landowner a bit for not grazing it until a certain time. We have haying programs where we ask the individual not to cut the hay until after July 15. We compensate the individual. We figure out how much the economic loss is and we compensate them. In those relationships we've worked out, we've been very successful.

As an organization, we're trying to develop grazing systems that are actually good for us and good for producers, so we don't have to do that. And we've been very successful with that.

I want to make the point that especially in the prairies—we have a lot of experience, more than any other group, including the government—producers want to do the right thing, but if you're a grain and oilseed producer right now, you can't possible afford to do something that's going to take money out of your pocket.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

If I have additional time, I have two quick questions.

Dr. Bradstreet, how do you build cooperative partnerships with landowners in your field work for species like the eastern loggerhead shrike, which needs grazed pastures, which are traditional habitats? How do you get collaboration from ranchers?

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: Well, loggerhead shrikes like mostly poor farmland. So what works with people who are up against the wall economically when you don't have money? We don't have money to compensate landowners for protecting shrike habitat. Generally what works best is being humble and asking for the landowner's advice; second, recognition of the contribution the landowner is making; and third, providing information that allows the landowner to better understand the needs of the species so that they can be incorporated into the landowner's work plan rather than presented as a command and control approach.

• 1045

The loggerhead shrike is quite an interesting example in that there are some farming groups who find the protection of loggerhead shrikes quite an infringement on their current activities. But it's not about the farming; it's about dividing the land and building houses. Under the Ontario act, these activities are constrained.

So as soon as you do get into a legal system, you are going to have altercations with opposing interests, and those will be difficult to sort out, as we've already found with loggerhead shrikes. There are farmers who are very proud of what they're doing to conserve loggerhead shrikes. There are farmers who are furious that they cannot subdivide their property and get a $35,000 lot fee to keep them going economically because of the loggerhead shrike.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Do I have time for one more question, or would you like me to wait?

The Chair: Perhaps in the second round.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer, please go ahead.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): My question is directed to anyone of you since all of you have addressed the issue, though each in a different light. It is perhaps more specifically directed to Mr. Gray. I always ask myself the same questions whenever the discussion turns to the contents of the lists and when, in discussing the measures that the government is going to have to take, we debate the merits of the scientific approach as opposed to the political approach, and weigh the discretionary character of certain measures against the advantage of making them compulsory. Let me explain.

An endangered species is a species whose very survival is threatened by various factors identified by scientists. No species is endangered by political factors and we all agree that the list of species at risk, must be drawn up according to very specific criteria.

Mr. Gray, you stated at one point that we could take into account various social, economic and geographic factors including the fact that certain species by their very nature, because of their genetic heritage, would become extinct in any case. The next step, which is to say the measures taken in order to preserve, conserve or protect wildlife habitats, could incorporate certain discretionary aspects. We, that is to say the Minister, could then determine whether a given species is indeed endangered and whether we should invest the time and effort required to ensure its survival.

Would you tell us why, in the Act, you want the word "peut" to be replaced by the word "doit",

[English]

“may” must become “must”

[Translation]

without exception, when we might see some discretion allowed in choosing measures designed to ensure recovery? The fact that the government "must" in every case, might make this aspect of the legislation overly inflexible if the list only takes scientific factors into account?

[English]

Mr. Brian Gray: Thank you. My specific comment on the “must” rather than “may” had to do with clause 57, and that was that at least the government must establish codes of practice, standards or guidelines with respect to the protection of critical habitat. In our opinion, that still gives the government leeway to decide whether or not they proceed with an action on a given species that's listed.

We also propose the negative billing process, where it's listed based on science and then cabinet has an opportunity, based on socio-economic needs, all of the things they have to weigh and balance—health, other issues that are very important to Canadians, education—to make a decision. If I could use an analogy, if we focus on the grains of sand—and this is where I see it's our elected officials who need to make this decision, not scientists; scientists tend to focus on the grains of sand. But if you look at an hourglass, and the analogy that the species at risk are going through the bottleneck of the hourglass, when they're falling through they become at risk. Scientists will keep focusing on individuals—these grains of sand—but we need something to block that hourglass bottleneck from happening.

• 1050

Our argument is that that's landscape conservation. So we're worried that if we focus too much on all these individuals, as you would suggest, that might be going extinct anyway, more and more species will become at risk.

We think, as an organization, it's the government's responsibility to weigh all of this information and make a decision. If not, we are concerned that scientists will be focusing on the individuals and we're going to lose more species. So we need it listed on science, but the decision of what stays and what goes will be in the hands of our elected officials.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I want to be sure I understand. According to you, in drawing up the list, we should also take into account certain political criteria that would enable us to identify the species at risk which could then be added to the list.

[English]

Mr. Brian Gray: As soon as COSEWIC lists a species, it becomes a species that's officially listed. What we're suggesting, and I think others have suggested, is a sort of time limited veto process. I don't know what a reasonable amount of time would be, but we're saying there should be a point of time where Canada has an opportunity to say, “We can't proceed with this species for these reasons”. That would force our elected officials to make a decision. If they acquiesced, the species would still be protected because it would still be on the list.

As it's proposed now, that couldn't happen. The elected officials could acquiesce and a species that's listed by the scientific group wouldn't get officially listed by cabinet. So we want to protect species from acquiescence of government officials.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Scherrer.

Mr. Orchel, very briefly, please.

Mr. Jack Orchel: On the basis of experience in British Columbia, there is a lot of progressive thought about looking at managing watersheds, looking at a whole ecosystem. The big players in this particular case are the forestry companies. The management of forests in British Columbia is governed by a Forest Practices Code. There is room for interpretation of how the Forest Practices Code can be implemented for the benefit of threatened species.

I think it's really a question of exercising informed pressure, as it were, in collaboration with people who will be working in specific watersheds, as to what action can be taken that will be of benefit to a whole community of species. It's very difficult, though, to ensure there is verification that the right action has been taken in terms of land management. That's why, in my submission, I was very concerned about stressing that first nations had an opportunity to meet and share their views and their experiences, instead of just having to rely on outside bodies. They have a different relationship to the land, which may not be informed by the sorts of concerns a scientific body may have.

I have direct experience of that. An area that I considered, as an outsider, to be of importance for conservation of migratory birds—in this particular instance, migratory birds of prey—was not considered to be important within the treaty-making process. So I think the voice of first nations must be heard. There must be a method of ensuring that voice is heard, not just from first nation to central government and provincial government, but from first nation to first nation.

The Chair: Merci, Madame Scherrer.

We have limited time in this room, so I will ask members to compress their questions. There is Mr. Laliberte and the chair, and we could have a second round. I will keep my question for the end of the second round.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I think a great deal of focus has been on the value of habitat and critical habitat, but more toward the value to landowners.

In my province of Saskatchewan, we have the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Association that assesses property. There's a whole jurisdiction, more to the southern rural and urban areas. But in the northern half of the province is the untitled crown land, and that's managed by the provincial government, through environment and resource management.

• 1055

In terms of bringing it into the communities, in the south, rural municipalities have jurisdiction, besides property owners, but more of a collective jurisdiction. In the north, we have a system called fur conservation blocks. In 1945, the province approached the trappers, hunters, and fishermen of the north and said, “Organize yourselves in an orderly manner with these boundaries. We'll protect your fur blocks, which are your trap lines.” The north is completely covered with all these fur blocks.

Should we in any way, as the honourable gentleman mentioned, be managing watersheds? I find it very exciting to try to harness the importance of the knowledge at the community level, but also make a national network. Should there be any effort to make a national network of resource management councils and wildlife management boards?

I know management boards are very prominent in the territories, but maybe we should blend them toward the northern half of our provinces, where there are no rural municipalities or counties. Then we would have a network, from all the borders and shores, that we could communicate with. In that way, the province and the federal coordination could come to a head.

Then you'd have a political weight at the community level that could address these intricate issues of species and critical habitat. Everybody would have a vested interest. It wouldn't be that perhaps this species was threatened in this area and all the focus would come there, and everybody would look at the monetary value or the economic or social impact. We would create a blanket right across Canada and make a network of a watershed system, a resource, or a conservation council system that's truly Canadian.

Maybe I'm just trying to look a little wider and think outside the box of the act. Maybe we as Canadians and we as the governments should create something that could work.

The Chair: Unfortunately, we have to think within the box of the act, Mr. Laliberte.

Could we please have a brief answer or comment?

Mr. Jack Orchel: I think there is a difficulty, in that if you focus on a single species, you miss the overall picture. Really, if you're looking at long-term plans, it's got to be on a much broader scale.

In Europe, we have legislation that binds every member of the European Community to designate species that are considered to be worthy of attention, from a conservation point of view. It lists them according to categories of red, blue, whatever.

Then there is a secondary directive that binds all European nations, which is the habitats directive. In other words, you look at the land and ensure that you identify important habitats. You then select the most important ones for special protection, but that obviously can only cover a selection of them, perhaps 10% to 15% of the land. The rest of the land, obviously, is also important for the protection of rare species, and that's where the sorts of arrangements that are discussed in your proposed act are important—the partnerships with land owners, first nations, etc.

I think the concept of looking at large areas of land is where we really need to start, because looking at individual species only gives you a fragmented picture. In a sense, looking at it from an aboriginal point of view, this legislation is really a western perspective, in trying to put something right.

Everything that's gone wrong with our view of nature, the fact that we have imperilled species, is a result of all sorts of human activities that have shown disrespect for nature. Perhaps there ought to be a different approach to it. That's why I was suggesting that the role of the first nations in Canada is really very important. They bring a completely different perspective and attachment to the land that goes back many centuries, whereas industry may be active for a very short time. They have different time scales and objectives, whereas people who want to preserve their culture bring something else to the debate.

I don't really want to say too much more about that because I'm an outsider.

• 1100

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

We'll begin a second round of one-minute questions with Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe it was our friend from New Brunswick who mentioned that the number of endangered species listed provincially is larger than that under this bill. Is that correct?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: No, that's not correct. I mentioned that on paper the provincial Endangered Species Act is stronger than the federal one.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

That's a question I want to build on, and I'd like to hear from any of you. As this lady just stated, the passing of Bill C-5 would not necessarily change the provincial act itself. Would the passing of Bill C-5 negate portions of a provincial act that is now in place?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: No, it would not change the act itself. It would not change anything that's written, but it would certainly change the way the recovery of species happens in the province. It would make crucial changes to the way governments deal with NGOs that do recovery, but not to the act itself.

Mr. Roy Bailey: How would it make a difference to the NGOs?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: There is a lot more pressure on NGOs to follow the regulations and policies that are presently being developed. The development of critical habitat guidelines is occurring, especially for the piping plover. The provinces that have not developed definitions of critical habitat are very much under pressure to follow suit in that, and that pressure in turn gets put on the NGOs that work on the ground.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé, you have the floor.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Several NGO's are involved in this. Let me say again that as I am standing in for a permanent member, I did not have the opportunity to read all of the materials. Are you satisfied with the machinery designed to determine which NGO's will have a seat on the council?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: No.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Why is that?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: Because I feel that the Act does not provide for sufficient NGO representation. And I do mean too little representation.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Redman, please.

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

I would just like to point out that three NGOs are represented on COSEWIC, but your concern is that it's not of a mandatory nature. Is that correct?

Ms. Sabine Dietz: It's also further down the line, as I mentioned in my presentation. It's when it comes to the recovery strategy and the action planning. That's where the representation is lacking. It's not mandatory there.

Mrs. Karen Redman: My question is for Ms. Smeeton. I commend you and your family's initiatives with regard to the swift fox, but I would point out that under Bill C-5 the ministers have the ability to decide whether or not to prepare a recovery strategy for extirpated species. There may be cases where there's no habitat remaining or where the habitat cannot be restored. Indeed, there could be cases where specimens for reintroduction cannot be obtained. That is one of the reasons we're looking at that kind of flexibility in the bill.

Ms. Clio Smeeton: What is your question?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Are you aware that these are the reasons that's part of this bill?

Ms. Clio Smeeton: That's common sense. Obviously, flexibility is essential. I don't have any problem with that. I just feel there should be greater input into the composition of COSEWIC. I think what I suggested echoes what everybody else around here seems to think, that there should be equal representation from NGOs, first nations, industry, and agriculture, as well as from government. At present, because there isn't that input from other outfits, we have government representation made up of people who know very little about the species whose recovery teams they are on. I don't have any problem with the idea of flexibility provided the decision is based on sound scientific research.

• 1105

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, please, one question.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just going back to my opening statement and trying to bring focus to the definition of wildlife management board. Most of them are in the territorial governments. That's what I'm trying to say. Maybe those wildlife management boards should draw the curtain down into the provinces as well, because there's nothing that exists there. The provinces are structured more in the southern agricultural, municipal governance structure, and the north is totally forgotten. It's in no man's land. It's a huge critical area. It's the entire boreal forest, the muskeg, and carbon sinks.

I think Ducks Unlimited mentioned something about the Kyoto Protocol and also carbon sequestration. That could be the definition of habitat in dealing with marginally productive agricultural lands. Maybe you should transfer them to wild prairie grasslands. But also you'd maybe get a credit in the future for carbon sinks. So you're opening up some dialogue here that has never happened before. You're putting value on habitat, and also on the horizon there's this dialogue of the Kyoto Protocol and carbon sinks. So there's something here that could lead into the future and give value to wild habitat. But who do you give it to? Do you give it to the forest management lessee who replants a single species, or do you give it to a wildlife management board that looks at the whole biodiversity of that?

People say that aboriginal persons are trappers. No, we were trappers to give the wealth to the Hudson's Bay Company. We were traditional land users who trapped the fur so that somebody in Britain could wear a hat. That's why we became trappers. Traditionally, we're land users. We looked at the blueberries, the mice, the squirrels, and the spiders. Everything was in context, and it was a complete web.

Unless an aboriginal person makes a land claim agreement, wildlife management boards don't exist. So it's kind of awkward here. We have to ascertain a land claim agreement before a wildlife management board comes in. Maybe you could help me see how we could extend the jurisdiction of wildlife management boards in managing a region of our country that's crucial.

Ms. Clio Smeeton: You're right. There is a precedent. The Mackenzie Valley land case involved consultation amongst all peoples, and that is what we're recommending. That should be applied in the south as well as in the north.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

The Chair: I'll ask one final question, because another committee is moving in. That has to do with the issue of stewardship initiatives. Hopefully, many good citizens, corporations, and organizations will become involved in stewardship initiatives. But there will also be a few—hopefully a very few—who will not want to become involved and to cooperate. In your view, is the legislation adequate to deal with those bad elements in society?

Mr. Michael Bradstreet: Yes.

Mr. Brian Gray: Yes.

Mr. Jack Orchel: It seems strong enough.

The Chair: Good.

Ms. Sabine Dietz: I'm not so sure about that.

The Chair: All right.

Thank you very much. This was a very informative session. I thank my colleagues for their questions as well and each one of you for your answers. I wish you well in your endeavours.

This meeting is adjourned until Tuesday.