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, March 29, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to all of you, and a warm welcome to our witnesses.

This is now the fourth in a series of hearings. Yesterday we had the Department of Fisheries and Parks Canada. It's worth noting that in the exchange yesterday, several members asked questions about the fact that the legislation before us does not have the same strength and scope as the operating legislation for the two departments that appeared before us.

By way of recapping yesterday's experience, I would say that this is a very valid observation and deserves to be taken into account when we reach the stage of preparing amendments. The record is quite extensive, so we can draw plenty of material from the blues for members to use in getting amendments ready, if they would like to pursue the matter.

Another observation I would like to make is in connection with the submission by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries. In his brief, he refers several times to a balanced approach to protecting endangered species. It would be interesting to know what goes into that balance—and I have some reservations as to the usefulness of the concept. If you put economic considerations into the balance, for instance, versus a species on the verge of becoming extinct—as perhaps we did in the case of cod—then inevitably that road will eventually lead to a moratorium, as happened in 1992. So I'm really puzzled by the fact that this concept seems to be the guideline for that department, and I intend to pursue it myself, one way or another.

• 0910

Are there any other comments members would like to make on yesterday's meeting? I would like to thank Bob Mills for having chaired the meeting so ably and so promptly.

Yes, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, I would like to encourage you to pursue that issue, because it bothered me as well, this whole business of what the balanced approach means. Does it mean at some point we agree that 50% of the species are gone? Is that a balanced approach that's acceptable? So I would encourage you to pursue that on our behalf.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): To add to your comments, with respect, the witnesses we had yesterday, DFO and Parks, I think clearly stated that the legislation in their purview currently is stronger than SARA would be. So why would we not want to have at least equitable legislation in the form of SARA? I think it would be very useful for the committee to have the minister responsible for parks and the Minister of Fisheries appear before our committee as well, so that we can further explore those particular points. If so much of this legislation refers to the applicable ministers, then we should hear from the competent ministers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It's an interesting observation. Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I apologize for my lateness. I'm coming at the end of a discussion here, or in the middle of it, but if I've heard Mr. Herron correctly, he's asking to have appear before the committee those who are the competent ministers on this particular file. Part of the problem, Mr. Chair, is that when we have members of the civil service here, the department officials, they are only in a position to put forward policy decisions that have already been made. They cannot address the why's or maybe some of the how's. And certainly they're not in a position, all the time, to suggest that we can make amendments. So it might be useful to have a minister come in and have this kind of a discussion. I don't know.

It may be another option to write a letter to a minister and ask that a response come back to committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: If I could complement Ms. Kraft Sloan's comments, I don't think it would be just useful, I think it's absolutely imperative and necessary that we hear from the ministers, because of that aspect of the bill that permeates the entire legislation. From a federal perspective, it seems the other ministers would have at least as much, if not more, jurisdiction with respect to SARA than the Minister of the Environment. So I think it's absolutely necessary that we have them added to the list.

The Chair: Well, it's interesting.

Any other comments?

Thank you. We will investigate that possibility. The clerk will make the necessary inquiries and see how that can be done.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, on a small item of housekeeping, I understand a copy of the work plan has been circulated. Is that the final edition? Secondly, if it's not the final edition, could we propose an opportunity for the committee, perhaps next week or when you're back, Mr. Chair, to have a final discussion about all the other bits we want to add to the hearings, whether it's round tables or what, so we can get an idea of how this may conclude.

• 0915

The Chair: Well, we hope it is almost final—it's getting to be pretty long. But it does not yet include the witnesses each member of this committee would like to choose, based on the arrangement we agreed on a couple of weeks ago. The clerk is still waiting to receive that input. And of course, that will generate 15 more potential witnesses. We could perhaps hope to accommodate them in two sessions, one of seven and one of eight.

So that aspect is still waiting for a conclusion.

Madam Redman.

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

I'm wondering if we could all bring our calendars to the next meeting. I know this committee has been very open to additional meetings in the past, and we are currently meeting at additional times. Just to clarify, how many committee members have put in names of witnesses they want to call?

The Chair: Only a few.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If we got our calendars together, perhaps we could have a productive discussion about timing. I don't know if peoples' agendas would allow a full day, but perhaps we could consider that as a way to allow witnesses time to come. The clerk could contact them, and we could finalize arrangements. Everybody's calendar is getting very full, including the minister's, and it would be nice if we could have a little bit more certainty about the work plan.

I know we've discussed round tables in the past. If the committee felt that needed to happen, I would suggest that we could maybe look at the timing for those. I know I've suggested that we look at mixing our panels, to get more of an atmosphere of a round table—so we could hear from different groups and have different views.

This is a very comprehensive bill, although not a complex one, and it touches many interest groups. Maybe having them here at the same time, within the structure of calling witnesses, would lead to a productive and thought-provoking discussion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any further comment? Then we will proceed with our witnesses.

We have an introduction by Mr. Peeling, I understand, and then the meeting will evolve as it should according to your plan. Welcome again. We're very glad you were able to come and we're most anxious to hear you.

Mr. Gordon Peeling (President, Mining Association of Canada; Species at Risk Working Group): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to appear before you once again on the Species at Risk Act and to resubmit our recommendations to you for improving the legislation.

I'll introduce the members of the working group. With me here today are Sandy Baumgartner of the Canadian Wildlife Federation; Marc Johnson of the Canadian Nature Federation—Laura Telford will be joining us a little later this morning; and Pierre Gratton, also from the Mining Association of Canada.

Unfortunately, Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club cannot be with us today. She is our expert on prohibitions, exemptions, and constitutional aspects of the legislation. But she will be appearing before you later in your schedule.

We will endeavour to do our best to address some of these areas today, but obviously she will be able to provide much more full responses when she does appear before you.

Robert Décarie and Tony Rotherham of the Forest Products Association of Canada are also here with us. We have a number of special guests to introduce to you as well.

Don Brain is a forest management planner and an active member of the recovery team for the Newfoundland pine marten. Don works for Abitibi-Consolidated, a newsprint producer in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland.

Gary Nielson is a private land forester who works for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Gary is also a private woodlot owner with at least four species at risk on his property.

Vern Betts is manager of environment, health and safety for Homestake Canada, a member of the Mining Association. The company is a leader in the field of reclamation and has won several awards for its work in and contribution to biodiversity protection.

• 0920

Vern is an active member of the Mining Association and sits on our environment committee, data integrity group, and aquatic effects subcommittee. He also sat on the association's environmental assessment task force, set up for the recently completed five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

That is our group this morning, Mr. Chairman.

The Species at Risk Working Group was formed in April 1998 to develop and promote a collaborative approach to species at risk conservation. We're a diverse group that came together to attempt a different approach.

Let me explain the motivation behind the two industries here today, why we have worked with our conservation colleagues to find common ground on a challenging area of public policy.

The forest and mining industry sells a great deal of their products to environmentally sensitive foreign markets. Demonstrating good resource stewardship is essential for Canada as a country, and for our industries to maintain market access and jobs here in Canada.

But there's more than that. Our industries believe in sustainable development and support the federal government's efforts to adopt species legislation as an essential tool to achieve this. Our workers, managers, and shareholders are no different from other Canadians. They value healthy wildlife populations and want to adjust the practices of our industries to accommodate the needs of species at risk.

With this background, we have worked with our colleagues from the conservation community to develop straightforward, but key, improvements to SARA's legislative language as well as more comprehensive changes to the scope and breadth of the act. All of our recommendations are important, and they all work best as a package.

Our advice is grounded in three key themes that have guided our efforts from the very beginning. These themes are that (1) efforts to protect species at risk by legislation, policies, and programs be developed in a manner that works for species and for people; (2) these efforts be designed to foster trust and cooperation between governments and among stakeholders; and (3) solutions be pragmatic and must make sense to people who work on the ground.

For ease of presentation—I beg your indulgence as we go through our various sections—my colleagues will speak to each of our recommendations in the sequence they appear in our brief, and they do speak from particular areas of expertise. But I do want to assure you that they represent the collective view of the Species at Risk Working Group.

Let me make some general comments on SARA first. I will begin by acknowledging the minor changes that have been made to the legislation since the last Parliament. While minor, they are improvements, some of them directly responding to SARWG's recommendations. We welcome these changes, although, taken together, they fall short of what we were seeking.

Let me turn to the bill as a whole. In our brief, we support the minister's three-pronged approach to protecting species at risk. It has long been our view that real success in protecting species requires more than just legislative action.

We applaud the government's allocation of resources in budget 2000 to develop a Canadian way to creatively protect and recover species at risk and to protect other species from becoming at risk in the first place.

In addition, we welcome the cooperative spirit embedded in SARA. Its emphasis on stewardship and the enabling of conservation agreements is a constructive, pragmatic approach that will deliver results. This cooperative spirit is also reflected in the act's efforts to promote the involvement of local stakeholders in recovery strategies, as well as the provision enabling the payment of compensation. However, we are concerned about how fair the compensation system will be at the end of the day.

Finally, we strongly support the omission of citizen suit provisions in SARA, which is an inappropriate tool—in our view—for dealing with the protection of species at risk and which would undermine the act's efforts to promote trust and cooperation on the ground.

Despite these positive features, we have significant concerns with key elements of SARA. We believe it can, and must be, improved.

The most basic legal protection that one would expect from species at risk legislation—prohibitions against killing and destruction of residences—is not assured by SARA. In areas of clear, federal jurisdiction, the government's commitment to protecting species at risk is questionable. Processes for providing protection are complex and convoluted.

The proposed safety net is set up in a way that seems destined to discourage federal-provincial-territorial cooperation, which we all know is essential if species are to be effectively protected.

We strongly support the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada as a way to avoid jurisdictional battles that would make the lives of natural resource managers impossible. Good legislation is essential to the overall success of Canada's efforts to protect species at risk. We do not believe that SARA, without further amendments, will achieve the results that Canadians expect.

• 0925

We believe our proposed amendments will enable SARA to go further in terms of providing assurances that species will be afforded the protection they need and that those who work on the land will have their rights and interests respected. Let us now turn to some of our specific concerns regarding SARA.

[Translation]

I will now let Mr. Robert Décarie present the amendments we propose for the preamble.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peeling. Would it be possible to circulate the text you were reading from? It would be very helpful to us.

Mr. Gordon Peeling: Yes.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you have a copy of your specific concerns? I didn't get your documentation until late last night so I had no idea that I had it in my office. Thus I have not been able to read your brief, which is really unfortunate because I know how hard you've worked on this. So I can either choose to listen to you or try to get your very well-documented comprehensive brief, and therefore miss most of what I would like to ask you this morning.

So I'm just wondering if you have a copy of a condensed form of your recommendations. At least I can go through that and then develop some questions.

The Chair: Is there something in addition to page 17 on their brief?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just asking if there was something available.

The Chair: Yes. I'm asking whether the list or recommendations on page 17 is what you're looking for.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine, but it's a huge brief and I haven't got to that point yet.

The Chair: Is that adequate?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: All right. Thank you. Are there other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Décarie, please.

Mr. Robert Décarie (Biodiversity Advisor, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Species at Risk Working Group): The brief we have submitted is exactly the same as the one we presented in October. We haven't had time to add the few changes necessary. We will send you a kind of addenda later on.

First, let me say a word about SARWG's balanced approach. When the bill was tabled, one of the criticisms heard most frequently from the conversationists was about the so-called government discretion for the enforcement of the species at risk protection measures.

What is the rationale for that discretion? Certainly a will, on the government part, to take into account the other social values, the partnerships with the provinces, but also the social and economic factors and the costs to the state. After looking at the issue, we have therefore chosen an approach which allows for a better integration of the socio-economic aspects to the processes triggered by the Act, which should reduce the need for that discretion.

As a first step, we're proposing two amendments to the preamble. The first one clearly says that the purposes of the Act—the protection and recovery of species at risk—must be pursued to the extent possible while taking social and economic interests into account. This means that the protection of species at risk, as important as it may be, is not an absolute goal overriding all other social values.

The other amendment to the preamble is intended to recognize one the principles inherent to the convention on biodiversity, which is that the protection of species at risk must be borne by all Canadians and not only by a small group of landowners, resource users, workers and communities. It supports the principle of compensation.

The government has added to Bill C-5 a timid reference to the fact that, in certain circumstances, the cost of conservation could be shared. We ask that this cost sharing principle be spelled out more clearly.

I will now leave the floor to Sandy Baumgartner.

[English]

Ms. Sandy Baumgartner (Manager of Programs and Communications, Canadian Wildlife Federation; Species at Risk Working Group): Thanks, Robert. I'll be addressing the COSEWIC and listing recommendations of the group.

As you know, the first step in protecting species at risk is identifying what species are at risk, what their status is, and to what degree they are at risk. For more than 20 years, this function has been undertaken by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. You've previously heard from COSEWIC and I understand that you will be hearing from them again later during your hearings. I encourage you to participate and ask questions and learn first-hand the level of expertise that that committee has on it.

• 0930

You should also note that two of the founding members of COSEWIC are represented on SARWG: the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which is the organization I represent, and the Canadian Nature Federation, the organization Marc Johnson represents.

In my view, which I think is probably supported by my colleagues, the COSEWIC listing process is probably the least broken of any of the current efforts underway to protect species at risk in Canada. It's probably one of the most hotly debated issues over this bill.

We have a number of recommendations relating to COSEWIC and the listing process; these are found in our brief. First and foremost, we believe, and are firmly committed to, the view that this listing process must be based on science and science only. The process must be fully transparent and COSEWIC must function as an independent arm's-length body from government.

Probably one of the most controversial aspects of SARA has been the issue of what has been defined as the legal list. Many say that COSEWIC's list must become the legal list. However, government recommends that Parliament must have the final listing decision to maintain accountability under the act.

We're particularly concerned about this aspect because of what happens as a result of a listing. If a species for some reason doesn't make it onto the legal list, it's not afforded the resources that are given to a species that is defined as a legal listed species. The recovery aspects are the important aspects of species conservation. As just mentioned, if a species doesn't make it to the legal list, it's not going to have the resources dedicated to it to actually ensure its recovery. This is something we're deeply concerned about.

So SARWG has proposed a compromise. We propose that the COSEWIC list automatically become the legal list and that the Governor in Council has to take the onus of removing a species from the list and documenting and announcing publicly why that removal is taken. We call that the negative billing option.

Another possibility that was suggested to us, and you may want to consider, is separating out the listing process from the prohibitions process. Thus the COSEWIC list becomes the legal list and the prohibitions become applied on a species-by-species basis. The Governor in Council would be making those designations through regulations. It's not a recommendation we've explored very deeply but it's something that may be considered as an alternative to the current listing process.

SARWG also recommends that the current list of species identified by COSEWIC automatically become the legal list upon passing of this bill. COSEWIC, over the last number of years, has been reassessing species. We feel confident that the list presented by COSEWIC is a good representation of species at risk in Canada and should be put into the bill.

Our final recommendation is related to the timeframe allocated for the completion of status reports when a species is listed on an emergency basis. We are pleased to note that in the new bill, Bill C-5, this recommendation was taken and the requirement for the timeframe was changed from two years to one year. So we applaud the minister for making that change to this part of the act.

I'll now call on Tony, who will talk about definitions.

Mr. Tony Rotherham (Director, Forestry, Canadian Wood Products Association; Species at Risk Working Group): I would first like to address the issue of prohibitions.

Mr. Chairman, clauses 32 and 33 of the bill deal with prohibitions against the killing or harming of individuals and residences of listed species. We suggest that the government create a prohibition against the intentional—and I would like to underline “intentional”—killing of individuals or the destruction of residences that is applicable across Canada.

This, in the words of some of my forestry friends, is predation, and our industries, neither forestry nor mining, are involved in predation. If this were done, a mens rea defence would be required by virtue of the use of criminal law powers and the fact that these would be intentional transgressions.

Further on the matter of prohibitions, we feel that there's a need for clear definition. Residence, for example, is a non-biological term but in the act it has significant legal consequences. In our view, it is important that residence be defined in such a way that it cannot be mistaken for habitat nor construed to mean habitat. In our brief we offer a slight modification to the definition of clause 2 of Bill C-5. I would recommend that you take a look at our brief to see what it would be.

• 0935

Equally important will be the definition and description of the residence for the purposes of creating the prohibition. The present draft of Bill C-5 is silent on this important matter. We recommend that the minister, at the time of listing, indicate whether the concept of residence is applicable to the species in question and, if so, provide a clear definition and description of the residence. This is important because prohibitions and offences are involved and people must have clarity on this point at the time of listing.

Another word that we consider to be important is the word “take”. The word “take” used in subclause 32(1) could be open to interpretation. It should be replaced, in our view, by the word “remove”, or some other word that is more consistent with the French word prendre, which is used in the French version of the draft bill.

In the case of species, Bill C-5 defines “species” differently from COSEWIC. To avoid future court challenges, the two definitions must be consistent. We think this is an important matter that the government should address.

We also believe there should be a grace period for prohibitions. Clause 77 of the bill provides for a one-year period of grace before any prohibitions come into force. The period of grace applies to licences and permits issued under federal authority. This period of grace should be extended to licences and permits issued under provincial and municipal authorities also.

I would now like to touch on the matter of due diligence defence under SARA. SARWG is concerned with the use of due diligence in clause 100 as a defence under the act for a number of reasons. Although due diligence is a common measure of defence in environmental law, it is not typical in criminal law. The defence of due diligence is characteristically associated with strict liability offences, i.e. where negligence is the intentional element required for the accused to have committed the offence.

Clause 100 requires that a person charged with an offence pursuant to Bill C-5 must prove on the balance of probabilities that all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent the commission of the offence.

We believe that proving due diligence is potentially very cumbersome and difficult for many resource users and landowners. Although due diligence can be demonstrated in the operation of a plant on a fixed site, for operations covering hundreds of thousands or millions of hectares and over which control of external factors is limited or impossible, due diligence is very problematic.

We do not believe that requiring hundreds of thousands of private property owners actively farming or conducting woodlot management operations on the 70 million hectares of agricultural lands and the 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands across Canada to prove due diligence is a reasonable demand of the act. We think this is probably unworkable.

For the mineral exploration industry, which operates over huge land areas covering a wide range of habitat types, such an obligation could be a substantial deterrent to many companies considering investments in prospecting and exploration programs.

We therefore recommend that prohibitions, particularly with respect to their application on critical habitat, be made mens rea offences shifting the onus to the crown to demonstrate that violations were clearly intentional.

If due diligence is maintained as the defence mechanism, the scope of the requirements for due diligence should be clearly defined in the regulations so people understand what is required of them.

If the government chooses not to accept our recommendations, we have the following three suggestions. One, we suggest a mix of defences. Due diligence could be required in areas where critical habitat has been identified. It makes sense to ask of someone to take special care when operating in such areas. In other areas offences would be mens rea. It is difficult to justify that all sorts of measures should be taken by a land user in areas where a species at risk can be encountered only randomly.

We believe there should be clear information on the offence. The government will have to provide and make readily available information to enable natural resource managers and private landowners to identify individuals of listed species, their residences, and the critical habitat that has been identified by recovery strategies. People must know what constitutes an offence and how to identify when they're getting into a dangerous situation.

• 0940

In the matter of training and information, we believe the federal government must work with the provinces to provide training for natural resource managers and private landowners who will be required to exercise due diligence in the planning and implementation of all resource management and agricultural activities. Failure to make such programs readily available will deprive Canadians of the means to defend themselves against criminal charges.

I would like to ask Gary Nielson to bring a private landowner's perspective to this point.

The Chair: Before we do that, Mr. Rotherham, you mentioned a few times the term mens rea. Could you explain for us, the unwashed masses, what it implies?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: I'm not a lawyer, sir, but I understand it means a guilty mind; you know that you are committing an offence. Someone who robs a bank knows they are committing an offence, and banks are easily identifiable. An endangered species—a bird, perhaps—may not be easily identifiable by the average Canadian. So we believe a mens rea offence is more appropriate given the weight of the penalties that may be brought to bear.

Mr. Pierre Gratton (Vice-President, Public Affairs and Communications, Mining Association of Canada; Species at Risk Working Group): If I may, another way of looking at it is a mens rea offence would shift the onus to the crown to demonstrate in fact that the person being charged willingly did so. Under due diligence, the onus is on the individual to demonstrate that they took all necessary precautions.

Due diligence is pretty common, we recognize, in environmental law. To that extent, it wasn't too surprising to see it here. We just don't think it's appropriate in this particular area. When you're dealing with a mine site, they would perform due diligence because it's a clearly defined area and they know what they're responsible for. When you're dealing with potentially large areas of habitat, with a lot of variables that are well beyond your control, it's a much more difficult matter. It's not so much that you wouldn't take all the necessary precautions, but it's the demonstration of those that becomes particularly difficult. You have to go to court and demonstrate that over these few thousand acres you took all necessary precautions to ensure that nothing in fact would occur. That's where the issue comes up, if that helps.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gary Nielson (Woodlot Owner; Species at Risk Working Group): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The working group is recommending that the destruction of individuals and their residences be prohibited on all lands. As a private landowner, I believe this is the only way to go. After all, we are talking about species on the brink of extinction. However, this due diligence part of the bill then becomes problematic for landowners as well as land users. It's the stewardship and the compensation aspects of the bill that are the most important, and I think will make it ultimately the most effective. These purely regulatory and punitive aspects basically don't work on private land. This is how due diligence would be viewed on private land. The onus is on the private landowner to prove he has knowledge of it.

Unfortunately, shoot, shovel, and shut up, although it sounds trite, is still a commonly used management practice on private land in rural Canada when it comes to controlling the use of private land.

The problem with due diligence is that nobody has the information required to make it a reasonable proposition yet. Most people want to do the right thing, of course, but when it comes to placing restrictions on what people can do on their land, it's often when and how they receive the information that affects their decision. If the first time they hear about an endangered species on their property is when they get charged with an offence, or perhaps when a planning application gets turned down because of the presence of a special critter, their reaction is pretty predictable. They are going to be angry and upset and they're not likely to cooperate with recovery actions later.

Landowners need to be notified that they have special critters on their land. They need to be involved in recovery planning at some level. They need to be offered advice, assistance, stewardship programming, and, in extreme circumstances, perhaps even some form of compensation.

Down the road, when recovery plans are in place, when these species' ranges have been mapped, when people generally know where these things are, when it's common knowledge, then due diligence may be a more reasonable approach. If we really want to save species, then we need to emphasize the science and mapping component of the whole exercise at this point. We need to have a real effort shown that the people who we need to cooperate, the people who own the land, are being brought into the loop first.

On my own 200 acres, I think I have at least four species at risk. I consider myself to be a fairly informed person; I make an effort to do this. But I could have as many as eight or there could be more. I really don't know. My neighbours don't have a clue. We have to keep them in mind.

Thank you.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nielson.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: Our next speaker will be Marc Johnson.

We've touched on prohibitions.

I think the best person to deal with exemptions, because it is a rather tricky area of law, would be Elizabeth May, who will be appearing before you sometime in the future.

Mr. Marc Johnson (Manager, Conservation Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation; Species at Risk Working Group): I want to take a couple of minutes to touch on the issue of habitat protection in the Species at Risk Act. We believe the legislation can be and should be improved upon to ensure greater assurance that endangered species habitat will be protected.

We recognize that environmental protection in Canada requires a partnership between the federal and provincial governments. It is therefore essential that the two levels of government work together cooperatively. The most important contribution the federal government can make to endangered species conservation is to have their own house in order. In other words, the federal government must ensure habitat protection in areas of clear federal jurisdiction.

The experience in Canada suggests that discretionary habitat protection measures do not work. If we look at an example, Quebec's endangered species legislation has discretionary habitat protection measures. Not one of the eight animal species that have been listed under their act receives habitat protection. The copper redhorse is a fish species endemic to Quebec. It's found only in a few rivers south of Montreal. The recovery team for the copper redhorse specifically indicated that the protection of its spawning grounds in the Richelieu River is essential to its survival, yet this critical habitat remains unprotected.

We do not believe that by adopting mandatory critical habitat protection measures the federal government will be adopting U.S.-style, command-and-control legislation. Rather, through an inclusive recovery planning process, stakeholders will be able to work together constructively to conserve habitat.

At the end of the day, SARA must provide certainty that habitat will be protected within the federal government jurisdiction. Specifically, it must ensure habitat protection on federal lands and for aquatic species.

Regarding the issue of migratory birds, we are aware that Justice has given the advice that the federal government does not have authority over their habitat. We've also heard opinions to the contrary. We therefore request that this matter be clarified. If it is found that the federal government has authority over migratory bird habitat, then SARA's scope should be broadened accordingly.

The last issue I want to touch on is interim habitat protection. We support interim habitat protection measures between the time a species is listed and the time a recovery plan is complete. We recommend that buffer zones be established under SARA and that non-regulatory means be used to help ensure their conservation throughout that period of time. An example of what I mean by a buffer zone would be a situation where you would prevent a nest of an endangered bird being left in a lone tree while the surrounding area was clear-cut. You would provide some identifiable measure of habitat protection—for instance, a 100-metre buffer zone—around a particular nest, den, or what have you.

In summary, by appropriately broadening the scope of the habitat protection measures, by making these measures mandatory, and by enabling non-regulatory interim habitat protection measures, we believe that SARA can truly and effectively protect the habitat of endangered species.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[Translation]

Mr. Décarie.

Mr. Robert Décarie: I would like to talk about the recovery issue. We've based our discussion on four principles, which I will summarize for you.

According to the first principle, the process should be inclusive. Why? Because an inclusive process allows the stakeholders and everyone else to participate in preparing a plan. On the one hand, it signals very clearly that people are taken into account and that their needs are not ignored, but accepted as legitimate elements of the equation. That should maximize the chances of support to the recovery objectives.

• 0950

Second, an inclusive process ensures that the local knowledge and expertise about the species are taken into consideration and that everything is done to reduce the impact of recovery measures on socio-economic activities. It also helps to develop optimal scenarios and to adapt operational methods to the species needs, which also maximizes the chances of support to the measures chosen for recovery.

Third, inclusiveness offers the best guarantee that the recovery plans will be adopted and supported by the communities, and that the species will be accepted by them. The financing possibilities, which are essential to maintain the system costs as low as possible, are also maximized.

Paragraphs 39(1) and 48(1) of the Species at Risk Act say that the recovery strategy and the action plan must be prepared in consultation with a series of partners, including the people and organizations that the appropriate minister finds relevant. We understand perfectly, and we agree that we can't expect to see 200 people around a table to prepare a recovery strategy. On the other hand, the main stakeholders, those who manage large tracts of land or operate in very important areas for species at risk, should be invited to the table. They cannot be ignored.

One of our fears is that the Species at Risk Act gets split between two groups: the thinkers and the doers, who must apply what the thinkers have thought. We see this as a dead end.

The second key principle is the scientific identification of the species needs. We want to insist on the importance of establishing the needs of the species, in particular their critical habitat, based on scientific evidence. It's the best way to allow for a fair appreciation which satisfies not only the conservationists—who want the needs of the species to be taken into account—, but also the users—who often fear the application of improvised or intuitive measures, or an improper use of the precautionary principle. If we agree on solid scientific data, we can go ahead.

If there is insufficient data—which could very well happen—, the strategy will have to include a study plan for obtaining the knowledge necessary to make good decisions.

The identification of crucial habitats should be a specific segment of the recovery strategy, and should be addressed by a committee of the recovery team.

The third key principle concerns the importance attached to the social and economic factors. We must not only establish the needs of the species, but also look at the social and economic issues. Who will be affected and how? When the recovery strategy is established, it's important to be able to compare different scenarios addressing the needs of the species and to choose the one which will have the lesser impacts at the social and economic levels. Of course, there will be unavoidable impacts and we will have to allow for compensation in those cases.

The fourth and last key principle is about efficiency, or scheduling. Bill C-5 proposes no time frame for the presentation of an action plan. We recommend a one year deadline for the preparation of any action plan concerning an endangered or threatened species. That plan might not be comprehensive, but should already include enough measures to initiate action, which can continue later.

As for the commitment issue, Bill C-5 does not require the federal government to enforce the measures specified in the action plan and falling under its jurisdiction. We recommend that the measures mentioned in paragraph 53(1) be made mandatory, subject to a prioritization process, in the 120 days following the presentation of the action plan.

About that prioritization, and because the resources are limited, SARWG recommends the elaboration of a prioritization process to make sure that the key species are taken in charge and the funds are not spread thin or wasted in all directions.

• 0955

Finally, there is the financing issue. To ensure that its action is efficient, the government must allow for an adequate financing.

I will now ask my colleague Don Brain to explain how things should work from his point of view.

The Chair: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Décarie.

Mr. Brain.

[English]

Mr. Donald L. Brain (Supervisor of Planning and Inventory, SFM Coordinator, Abitibi-Consolidated, Newfoundland Woodlands; Species at Risk Working Group): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. My name is Don Brain. I'm a registered professional forester and I work at Abitibi-Consolidated in Newfoundland.

The reason I'm here today, Mr. Chair, is to briefly share my experiences of being actively involved in the pine marten recovery plan, which is progressing in Newfoundland. I want to lead off with two words: “balanced approach”. Mr. Chair, I know you started the meeting by using those two words, but this is in a different context. What I mean by this is that in order to have a successful recovery plan, all key players need to be at the table. I have a couple of examples of this. Approximately five years ago our first pine marten recovery plan was developed. The team was comprised of the scientific community, and there were no other land managers present. The end result was that plan was not accepted by the other land users and was not implemented. In other words, it didn't work.

There's a new approach being used right now. I have to give credit to the Newfoundland government. They have invited key players to the table. These include industry, environmental groups, government, the scientific community, and trappers, people who are actually out on the land base. These people have contributed in a very positive manner. Some of the results from having these diverse people at the table are a greater appreciation of values; a greater respect for each other, which is extremely important; and a better understanding of a common goal.

What's interesting is that while this new draft of our plan is being completed, many positive things have occurred for the betterment of the pine marten. I have a list of things that are ongoing while we're still at the table. When we first started, we never had a clear definition of what habitat is, and we're coming very close to that now. That's only because we could talk together and bring in the values of the people who are out in the field.

We have a high mortality rate with accidental snaring and trapping. Because of this team, a modified snare and trap was made for hunters. Industry partnered with government to develop some training programs. We actually went out in the field all this winter to people's traplines and showed them how to use this. There was a very positive response to it.

Also, while we were at the table, we found we had some gaps in knowledge related to habitat, so we now have a PhD student working on a research project.

I think one of our biggest accomplishments to date, which is not totally from the recovery team but certainly part and parcel, is that we had the establishment of a 150,000-hectare reserve in Little Grand Lake.

From closer to home, our own company has modified our cut blocks. These had to be registered with EA. It has been recognized nationally, and it won a Habitat Canada award for doing that, manipulating and making sure we had sufficient habitat for marten on the land base.

All of this, Mr. Chair, is because we had a balanced approach on the recovery team. I believe that having key players at the table will produce a cost-effective plan, a practical plan, and also a timely delivered plan.

I heard the word “compensation” used here today, and I think more words are going to be spoken about it. I think it will help reduce compensation. All those at the table now are landowners. If someone is going to come in and remove land for any reason at all, such as to make an easement or a road, you're going to want to be compensated. Mr. Chair, industry and land users are no different. If they are at the table, hopefully that will be reduced, and you'll have buy-in for the product that will be developed.

In conclusion, in Newfoundland some good work is being done, and with a balanced approach and positive attitudes, realistic and acceptable recovery plans can be developed.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brain.

Mr. Gratton.

Mr. Pierre Gratton: I'll address the issue of compensation. Compensation is one key tool for implementing the principle that species protection is a public good. We are therefore pleased that SARA enables the payment of compensation. Unfortunately, the bill is vague on the issue of eligibility and valuation. In light of the minister's statement that compensation should not extend to corporations or to those who use but do not own the land, that is of great concern.

• 1000

Compensation should be a last resort. In many instances, the cost of changing practices to accommodate the needs of species at risk can and will be borne by resource companies as part of managing in a responsible and sustainable fashion—and we've just heard evidence of that. But there will be circumstances in which compensation to land users, including resource companies, would be appropriate and justifiable.

As the committee knows, the minister asked Dr. Peter Pearse, a respected natural resource economist, to address the issue of compensation, to make recommendations on its scope and application. SARWG met with Dr. Pearse, and both MAC and the Forest Products Association of Canada submitted briefs and had separate meetings with him. We want to commend Dr. Pearse for the thoroughness of his consultations and the open, candid approach he took towards his task.

In our view, Dr. Pearse's report is a thoughtful examination of the difficult issues that compensation raises in the context of the SARA, and it does affirm three basic principles that are missing in the SARA that we fully endorse. Firstly, when regulations impair crown land tenants' contractual rights, causing significant loss in the value of those rights, the holder should be eligible for compensation, just as are private landowners. Secondly, losses eligible for compensation must be based on fair market value. Thirdly, losses eligible for compensation must be assessed by an open, professional process, at arm's-length from government. These principles provide the foundations for a fair and equitable system.

The report does raise two main areas of concern. The first has to do with the definition of “extraordinary impact” as something affecting more than 10% of the value of the land or the net returns from it. This threshold is debatable and could be detrimental to some. For example, 10% of a small farm in Savoy Landing, New Brunswick, may be put out of business. At the same time, one wants a regime that excludes nuisance claims, for which a minimum dollar value might be more appropriate. The reality is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all sectors or situations. We therefore need a regime that uses common sense, is flexible, and is reasonable.

The second issue is the recommendation that only 45% of the loss should be compensated. This upsets many landowners and land users, is seen to be arbitrary—it is arbitrary—and is not justifiable.

All of this talk about compensation will make some people nervous. It sounds expensive, and it is a threat to the resources we would rather see directed to stewardship and species recovery. So before I conclude, let me put this issue in some perspective.

First, Dr. Pearse's report explicitly states that compensation will be a last resort because, first, the SARA promotes the use of voluntary measures to protect and recover species at risk; second, the provinces will be the first jurisdiction that will be confronted with and be asked to resolve a potential land-use conflict; third, the federal government will likely first try to use other legal tools that don't trigger compensation, such as the Fisheries Act; fourth, compensation comes into play if, and only if, the federal safety net is invoked because other means were not applied or were not effective; and lastly, the difficult political situation that would result from the federal government stepping into areas of clear provincial jurisdiction will stimulate innovative agreements between the two levels of government and will limit the use of the safety net. Plus, as we had our colleague describe, with a very accommodating process where all parties are at the table, you will find solutions that should, in all instances, prevent the need for compensation.

There is absolutely no reason to jeopardize the strong, symbolic benefit of having a fair compensation regime by depriving people from access to the fairly assessed value they will lose.

Secondly, let's look at the issue of cost. It does not have to be expensive—and let me give you one example.

In British Columbia, compensation legislation and regulations were set up to deal with the expropriation of mining properties. The system has three stages. The first stage is a negotiation involving a government negotiator. The second stage is arbitration if negotiation fails. The third stage is the courts, if arbitration fails or is challenged. The value of a property is determined by assessing what it would have sold for the day it was expropriated, using the so-called Roscoe method, which was developed by Bill Roscoe, of Roscoe Postle Associates, a Canadian firm based in Toronto.

To date, out of forty claims, eighteen have been settled in cash, ranging from as low as $5,000 to as high as $500,000, for a total settlement value between $650,000 to $700,000. One claim involved an exchange of property. No one in the province thought that would happen, because it's not common in mining to be able to to say you'll move this piece of land for that piece of land, since what's important is what's underneath.

The B.C. government, which had set aside $5 million to cover the forty claims, now expects them to come under budget. In the process, all have been settled by negotiation. Not one has gone to arbitration or the courts. Compensation is not as scary as we think.

• 1005

To conclude, I should note that, upon release, the Pearse report received enthusiastic endorsement by the minister. We are hopeful that this means the minister agrees with Dr. Pearse's conclusion on the issue of land users' rights. Unfortunately, the fate of the Pearse report is uncertain. Government officials have advised SARWG that the report has been taken under advisement. The real work of setting up the compensation regime must still be done. To be this far down the process of enacting species at risk legislation and still have no clear idea of what is to become of a crucial aspect of the bill is very disconcerting, to say the least.

All of us in SARWG believe compensation should and will be a last resort. The regime must be set up in a way that prevents abuse. But for SARA to enjoy confidence on the ground from the beginning, it must be seen to be fair. For this we need a compensation regime that respects both private property and contractual rights. We urge this committee to take action to protect the legitimate interests and rights of all Canadians.

With that, I turn to my colleague to address the issue of CEAA.

The Chair: Mr. Betts.

Mr. Vernon Betts (Manager, Environment, Health and Safety, Homestake Canada Inc.; Species at Risk Working Group): The purpose of SARA is the protection of species at risk. It makes sense that SARA's purpose be embedded in future projects, that new developments take into account the objectives of SARA and the needs of species at risk at the feasibility and planning stage.

It is important that future projects consider issues such as: Are there listed species in the area? What do their residences look like? What specific areas are designated critical habitat? How may this project impact on the critical habitat of a listed species and its chances of survival and recovery? SARWG thus supports the intent of the government's proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which will look at these issues.

Bill C-5 includes one of the two amendments SARWG has recommended with respect to SARA's consequential amendments to CEAA. To subclause 79(2), “adverse” has been inserted before “effects”, which is consistent with CEAA's emphasis on adverse effects. While a seemingly minor amendment, it is not insignificant, and we are pleased that the government has made this change.

We also recommend, however, that proposed paragraph 137(a)(v) be changed to focus less on accounting for each individual residence than on ensuring that new developments take the survival and recovery of species at risk into account.

We have proposed an amendment that does not detract from the bill's intent but rather clarifies and strengthens it by placing the emphasis on habitat and the recovery of species. This amendment would maintain the sought-for obligation under CEAA, without creating an unworkable and potentially harmful requirement that would likely invite litigation.

This committee will soon be reviewing amendments to CEAA in a bill that reflects a broad consensus reached by the Regulatory Advisory Committee to the Minister of the Environment, which comprises representatives from industry, aboriginal groups, the Canadian Environmental Network, and governments. This bill goes a long way toward alleviating longstanding concerns of all stakeholders with the federal environmental assessment process. I hope the committee will have the opportunity to hear from the RAC on how it, like SARWG, was able to reach such a remarkable agreement.

It would be very unfortunate if SARA were virtually in parallel to undermine their hard work and success by injecting new problems and uncertainty into the assessment process.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Betts.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk briefly of stewardship agreements, permitting, and again touch on environmental assessment.

SARWG is pleased that SARA recognizes the importance of stewardship agreements as an effective tool aimed at ensuring the survival and recovery of species at risk. In our view, it is unlikely that the intent of the government is to have an environmental assessment triggered by the signing, by a landowner or a resource user, of a stewardship agreement involving federal funding. Nevertheless, we recommend that stewardship agreements signed with the federal government for conservation objectives be specifically exempted from an environmental assessment under CEAA. Uncertainty in this matter would constitute a major obstacle to the use of such positive and useful tools as stewardship and conservation agreements.

We also recommend that these exemptions apply if a landowner or resource user is asking for a permit under clauses 74, 75, and 78. The application for such a permit will already require a demonstration that the activity for which a permit is asked benefits the species or has only an incidental impact on the species. If an environmental assessment is required, it should be restricted to the scope of activity and to the area for which the permit is issued.

• 1010

Mr. Vernon Betts: To conclude our presentation, the passage of the species at risk legislation would be an important milestone for our country. It will respond to much more than the ideals of conservationists; it will respond equally, and in a direct way, to the business interests of Canada's resource sectors.

Species at risk legislation is a key element for buttressing our claim to be responsible stewards of Canada's lands. Reducing environmental effects has been a major focus for the mining and forest industries for many years, growing in tandem with society's increased environmental awareness and concern. The mining association has participated in several multi-stakeholder initiatives besides SARWG. These include AQUAMIN Project, the aquatic effects monitoring program, the mine environmental neutral drainage program, or MEND, etc., to improve our environmental performance.

To date, reducing environmental effects is only part of our industry's responsibilities. The growing concern for biodiversity issues in ecological integrity means mining and forestry companies must look not only at mitigation but also at enhancement. In fact, I believe the biodiversity challenge is an opportunity. In 1999, Homestake Mining Co. worldwide reclaimed 2,360 acres of producing and non-producing operations plus an additional 87 acres of orphaned mine sites. Wildlife mitigation and habitat enhancement strategies have been put in place at all of our operations.

One example in the United States is the creation of a wildlife preserve and field station, in conjunction with the University of California, for environmental studies at the McLaughlin mine. This has been commended by the Sierra Club. When building waste rock disposal facilities for that mine, we discovered a sensitive plant population so we redesigned and relocated part of the disposal facility.

The Chair: We are happy to hear commercials, but could you conclude soon so we can have a question period?

Mr. Vernon Betts: These examples are only the beginning. As companies, we still have much to learn and do to improve our environmental performance and to enhance our contribution to biodiversity protection, at the same time as we supply products essential to modern civilization and create wealth for our communities and countries.

One of the hoped-for benefits MAC members may receive from our participation in SARWG is stronger on-the-ground partnership with the conservation community to ensure that we can, in a post-SARA environment, do our job better. SARA is an opportunity for Canada. It is an opportunity for Canada's resource sectors to demonstrate to Canadians and the world that we're committed to responsible stewardship. But to do so effectively, we need effective legislation. The federal government has tabled legislation that is well framed, with a lot of positive elements that should move us along this path. However, it could and should do more.

By adopting the recommendations put forward today, the members of SARWG believe the government can go the extra step to deliver effective legislation for protecting species at risk. The recommendations by no means accomplish everything; in our federal system, there are limits to what can be expected of the federal government. But by adopting the measures we have proposed, the government can show true leadership and blaze a trail that will encourage all jurisdictions in Canada to do their part.

As the group stated to this committee last October, what is proposed constitutes important revisions to SARA. However, it represents the best advice from three major conservation groups and two of Canada's most important industries. SARWG laboured hard to get to this point. I believe its advice deserves your full consideration. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Betts. We have now Mr. Mills, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Herron, Madam Kraft Sloan. Five minutes each, possibly.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, you've raised a lot of areas I'd like you to expand on. Let me just touch on a couple of them; first, the one of compensation. I tend to agree with Mr. Gratton that if we don't deal with that in the legislation, this whole thing is going to be doomed and have little chance. I like your concept, “It's a last resort”. I think that's true. Fair market value must be there; common sense must be there.

I may differ with you on the Pearse report. That has become the battle cry in the field, at least the one I'm hearing. The 10%/50% compensation has become the whole negative focus towards this bill. In other words, if you're not harmed, cut the 10%; you're not going to be covered and it's only going to be 50% and you absorb the other 50%. I'd like to know how we overcome that concept on the ground. I tend to feel that it's got to be in the legislation—that's what they're telling us—and somehow we have to distance ourselves from that Pearse report. That is my first comment. I'd like you to respond, how you see it.

• 1015

Mr. Pierre Gratton: First of all, in my remarks—while I commended the Pearse report for its recognition of certain key principles that are important to us—I did also point out that the system he recommends has its problems, and some of them can be quite serious.

When the report was released, it was a question of looking at whether the glass was half full or half empty. We finally had a recognition that contractual rights meant something, so I saw the glass getting a little fuller than it was before.

I think you're absolutely right. It's certainly a very tough area and you can think of all sorts of different circumstances where 10% might seem fair in some cases but woefully inadequate in others. And 45%—I think and, quite frankly, all of us would agree—just seems totally arbitrary and its implications could drive a number of people into bankruptcy. That just seems not on and contrary to our understanding of what a shared good means.

In our submission to Pearse, we talked about setting up the system in a way that ensured those who refused to voluntarily participate in conservation agreements at the beginning would be worse off once compensation kicked in as the last resort. You would be able to say, if this person had participated in voluntary measures, they could have reduced the actual burden at the end of the day that they would have to absorb; and we're only going to compensate you for that amount, less what you would have otherwise received. So you actually create an incentive to voluntarily participate at the front end. But you have not taken away, at the end of the day, the ability to compensate those who try in earnest to find solutions but find themselves at the end in a position where a good part of their livelihood is at stake and, despite their efforts, they can't save that part of their livelihood.

Mr. Bob Mills: Now, from that point, one of the problems is the communications aspect of it and the very nature of the way that has been put forward to a lot of landowners, and I'm sure to industry as well, which has made it a very negative factor. As well, the cooperation, working together, I think we all agree, but we all have a lot of examples.... Yesterday Mr. Reed brought up an example of beaver dams and a biologist—and I won't give you the whole story—where it was very, very unreasonable. I brought up an example of a forest company, where a bridge was put in and was way on the other side of the bank and was only going to be used in the winter; yet DFO stopped its use because it shaded the fish in the river, while in winter it isn't harming any of the habitat. Those are the kinds of unreasonable things that are going to make landowners, land users, very suspicious. Then when they see this Pearse report, that's just the final, “Hey, let's get rid of these endangered species”.

Mr. Pierre Gratton: Though we made some comments for further improvements to it, one of the parts of the bill in pretty good shape is the way it describes the recovery planning process. If you have a good process where on the ground you've got all of the different interests together, presumably you would be in a position to prevent Fisheries and Oceans from coming in and telling you that you can't have that bridge there because this group would have come together and realized that, no, in fact, in winter it's not a problem. They should be allowed to have that bridge there during that time of the year.

Again, it underscores the importance of having, at the front end, a framework that allows for cooperation and trust to be built early on. We see evidence from our partner from Newfoundland of how that can work. Also, he gave an example of how it can't work, when you started off on the wrong foot. They lost a few years in the process, so they have, now that they're doing it right, got to where they want to be.

You're absolutely right in the sense that not to have a compensation system seen to be fair puts at risk the entire thrust behind SARA. You do not want everybody to feel this is something that's out to get them. You want them to feel they can work with this, because they'll say to themselves, I know that at the end of the day my family and I won't be at risk, so I will participate fully in all efforts to protect species at risk. You want that spirit from the very beginning. Compensation is just one of those things that allows for this.

• 1020

Mr. Bob Mills: And I agree, it won't cost that much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you for being here. The diversity of your group allows us to have several points of view on the scope of the bill we are studying together today. Unfortunately, I must leave in 10 minutes but I would like to ask you two questions before I go.

First, let me refer you to pages 5 and 6 of your brief. You quite clearly say that you think the federal government does not demonstrate strong leadership in all areas of clear federal jurisdiction, particularly regarding federal lands. You even say that you wish the legislation protecting critical habitat would be enlarged notably to migratory birds and aquatic species, on all federal lands.

On the basis of your work and your broadened discussions on the bill, according to you, for what reasons did the government pass legislation with such a limited scope? Was it for legal, political or other reasons? We draw the same conclusion as you. So do many other groups as we witnessed during the last three or four days of hearings. According to you, what considerations brought the government to pass legislation with such a narrow scope?

Mr. Marc Johnson: It is a very important question to which we have no answer. We cannot read the mind of members of the government. We don't know why the legislation is so narrow- reaching. Like you say, we wish they would take the best actions possible in the areas under federal jurisdiction, that is better protection measures. We don't know why they failed to do so.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: You recognize on the other hand that the federal government has the right to intervene on federal lands. You also recognize that on the basis of the Migratory Birds Convention the federal government can take action. They have the power to do so. They have the constitutional flexibility they need to do so, and you admit it.

Mr. Robert Décarie: This is true for federal lands and that certainly is true for aquatic species and birds. If you remember what we said in our presentation, we are not unanimous on everything. There are two different points of view in our group regarding some issues. For example, some of our members believe that the federal has jurisdiction over the habitat of migratory birds while others don't. We want this issue to be clarified. However we are of the opinion that when the situation is clear the federal should take action and send a clear message to provinces and individuals.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to talk about another issue. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned the shortcomings of the Quebec legislation regarding species at risk. Indeed, that legislation does not protect species at risk as well as it could. We must recognize however that it dates back to 1989. It has been in effect for 11 years whereas federal legislation is still in its infancy.

Some stakeholders suggested to us a couple of days ago that the provinces be allowed to opt out as long as they have provincial legislation equivalent to the federal statute that would be passed. What do you think of that approach? In so far as an existing provincial statute is equivalent to the federal one, the provinces could freely intervene within their boundaries instead of using a double net. What do you think of that approach?

• 1025

Mr. Marc Johnson: I think it is a very good approach. Indeed, this is the case for the Fisheries act. That approach has been implemented in some provinces under the Fisheries Act. If efficient legislation is in effect, there is no problem. I think it is a very good idea.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, that will be all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Is that all? Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank SARWG for the brief and in particular for the specific recommendations they made for amendments. I have a bit of a problem with the mens rea due diligence issue, but at least it raised that.

What I want to raise with you is what I will call accusations that your group, coming together as you have in a very unusual fashion as the people who are at the table.... I want to say in advance that this is not something with which I agree, and I don't think anybody on this committee does either. But the accusation is floating out there that the environmental groups in effect are being naive to think that the industrial groups are as straightforward as they're indicating and that, on the other hand, the industrial groups, in some kind of manipulative, Machiavellian fashion, are taking advantage of the environmental groups. I want to put this on the table now because I want a response from you on that type of allegation.

I'd like to hear from the environmental groups first.

Quite frankly, a number of the points that have been made today by various industrial sectors I think have already responded to this to some significant degree, in spite of Mr. Betts' attempts at pushing that list a bit. I would like to hear from the environmental groups how you respond to that type of allegation.

Ms. Sandy Baumgartner: Actually, that type of allegation I find quite disturbing. I think it is unfounded.

Previously, I've been involved personally in discussions around endangered species legislation. Prior to Bill C-65 I was actually on the original task force that was appointed by Sheila Copps, and if you wanted to see an exercise in futility, I could give you a lot of examples of that.

As a result of that failed exercise, SARWG came together. And I must admit, yes, of course, in the beginning we were all nervous and afraid of where we were going. We didn't trust each other. We sat down around a table and looked each other in the eye and said “I'm here because I want to find a way to make this work, but I don't trust you.” We all said that to each other. Then we began working together and we threw out all the baggage and we actually just shed our jurisdictional alliances and asked what will work the best. We started working together, and I have to say that we developed into a very cohesive group.

One of the best things I have found to have resulted from this exercise has been the relationships that have resulted. I now have a much better understanding of what works on the ground in the forest sector. I have a much better understanding of what mining companies are doing on the ground. I have a much better feel for what agricultural community issues are, what the problems are on the ground.

When we were working through our original report and we came to a problem, or we came to an issue, we sat down with the people who actually dealt with those problems. We sat down with farmers. We sat down with the mayor of Hinton, Alberta. We sat down with the resource users and actually had a good understanding and a good rapport and discussion.

Quite frankly, I'm quite disappointed that this type of view is still circulating about this group because I don't think our organization would be involved in an exercise where we felt we were being used or somehow manipulated. I think an organization that's been around for 40 years can see through that type of effort.

Thank you.

Do you want to add something, Marc?

The Chair: A brief comment, please.

Mr. Marc Johnson: I'll be brief.

I echo everything Sandy said. To build on that, the Nature Federation has been involved in campaigns for federal endangered species legislation right from the start, and we wouldn't be here with this group of people if we didn't think we could get the best legislation by working with the group we are.

I got involved in the working group a little bit later than most of the others at the table, and I had some preconceived notions about what federal legislation should look like when I joined this group. Through the dialogue and through the discussion, my understanding, and I think the understanding of everyone here, about how federal legislation can be effective has evolved. I think it's through that involvement over a period of three years that we've been able to come up with what we think are very meaningful and important recommendations.

• 1030

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, five minutes only, please.

Mr. John Herron: The comment I'd like to make is similar to what I said on the eve of the last election, because we were pretty sure we were going to the polls around that time. Obviously SARWG has helped to push the envelope with this piece of legislation already, and the challenge we have right now is that if we can enhance what I think is a very workable framework, we can have a bill that we can celebrate as opposed to a bill that we just have to accept. Those are the issues we're doing.

As you know, our position is that for the most part we've tried to mimic, plagiarize, and copy a lot of the SARWG initiatives all along.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You did an excellent job of it too.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

Mr. Bob Mills: No commercials.

Mr. John Herron: I think this process you folks came together to do has been very constructive, and perhaps for even future initiatives as well. In terms of the recommendations you're still pushing for, and a lot of folks are still pushing for, it seems your groups have set the bar much higher than the government has. A lot of industry groups, environmental groups, almost everybody who has come to committee so far, have set the bar higher than what government has it at with respect to listing, mandatory protection of critical habitat within federal jurisdiction, etc.

If the recommendations you've brought forth seem to go by the wayside, would you folks be more reticent to actually come together again in a future project? If your recommendations aren't going to be utilized, would you say, why bother?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: I'd like to respond to that. No, I think this has been a good experience for both sides, the industry side and the conservation side. The fact that we've been able to come to what we think are some pretty reasonable conclusions about how this thing should go forward is in fact a lesson that we can all take home and use for the next issue that comes up as well.

This I think is the basis for future action, not just a one-time only event. Many people in my industry have said exactly the same thing, that it's time for people to put down their bludgeons and swords and start to work more collegially on how to solve some problems that are pretty evident out there.

I would like to tell you of the next thing we in the Forest Products Association of Canada—the new name of the organization for which I work; I'm the director of forests—intends to do once the bill has been passed and some of the ancillary arrangements—like how will recovery planning work, how will stewardship work, and things like that—have been made. We're going to put in place, with the help of others, a series of regional workshops across the country where we, in our case, will invite forest industry people to come together and listen to what the provincial government people have to say about the nature of the provincial legislation governing endangered species and the programs that are involved there and how this affects woodlands operations and planning, and also how the federal law and its ancillary arrangements will affect our operations. We want to have a really good discussion so people know what the new operating environment is, where the levers are, where the help is, where the technical assistance is, and then everybody can go back to work and work within the new framework in a positive way.

We hope to do that, as I said, as soon as it is clear what should be communicated to people, because we don't want to go to them with one message and then four months later have to say, hell, there have been a bunch of changes and then have to go back and do the whole thing over again.

Mr. John Herron: If I could just—

The Chair: Mr. Herron, your time has expired.

Madame Kraft Sloan, please.

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

We've been told a number of times by officials from Environment Canada that the industry representatives on your organization do not really represent industry, or certainly do not represent all industry. I'm wondering how you might respond to that.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Décarie: We represent two sectors. Representatives of other industrial sectors are part of our group. That being said, as Sandy explained, we spent a lot of time meeting all types of organisations in order to understand their needs before defining our position.

Within our own sector, not everybody agrees 100% with all the positions we are defending. Some sectors and some regions will be more deeply affected than others by the legislation. They have legitimate concerns and are being more cautious but in general we have the support from our sector. However we certainly don't represent the Canadian industry as a whole.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Peeling: We have heard this comment from the mining sector, and that's one of the reasons why we've had our members join us today: it's one of our members. We've actually said no, because we knew we weren't all going to get to talk if we brought more members here, and that you as a committee had limited time to hear views from a number of members. But this issue has been before our board throughout this process, literally on a quarterly basis, and it has been endorsed again and again.

The other side of it is that we do not represent every mining company in Canada. There is a coal association, there's the Canadian Nuclear Association with the uranium industry, and there's the potash association. Although we have kept those groups informed, to the extent that we can, about where we were going as a collectivity, it is indeed true to say there are mining companies out there that may not be fully engaged in this because they are not related to the Mining Association of Canada. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that they're necessarily offside, but they may not be fully engaged to the extent that the members of the Mining Association of Canada are.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I think what all of you have done together is rather remarkable in terms of developing the consensus you have developed. Quite obviously, not everyone is going to agree with you 100%, but I would defy any sector, private, public, or third sector, to be able to do that.

I would like to ask a question about...when I was taking a look at the bill, I couldn't seem to find anything around mandatory notification to landowners once a species is listed. It's my understanding that this doesn't exist in the bill, so once a species is listed on the legal list, there is no mandatory notification to landowners. Can anyone verify that for me?

Mr. Marc Johnson: I don't think there is either. It's not something we've spent a lot of time looking at. I know it's there in some provincial jurisdictions, but, no, I don't think it is there in SARA.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you think it would be helpful if that were included in the legislation?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: Chairman, I think that's part of what we were talking about in the matter of information, in a way. People must be informed. Otherwise, they can't do the good things many good-hearted people will want to do, nor can they avoid offences if they don't have information. There's a terrific job of informing to be done in those areas where there will be endangered species, in order that people can, to the degree they want to, put their shoulder behind the wheel, do helpful things, and avoid offences.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I absolutely agree with you, and the more work I do in the environmental area, the more I'm convinced of the need for public access. It has to be done in a way in which the public can access it. Sometimes people need to be told there is a possibility or a potential for an infraction, but I know people generally want to do the right thing. I'm wondering if we could look at an amendment to provide automatic notification to landowners, how that might operate, and how to make sure it's practical.

Mr. Marc Johnson: Can I just...we haven't talked about this issue much as a group—

The Chair: Very briefly, please.

Mr. Marc Johnson: Very briefly.

Species migrate, and it would be an incredible onus to put on the Canadian Wildlife Service to be able to do that with every single landowner, but public education and various means of public education are absolutely essential.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure, and that's why I wanted to know if it was practical.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Redman, Madame Scherrer, the chair, and then a second round of three minutes.

• 1040

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

Clearly, this group has been invested in working on this issue for a really long time. I'm wondering if your representation has ever included anybody from agricultural or aboriginal groups.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: We had the early participation of Sheila Forsyth from the agricultural side. She was coordinator of the National Agriculture Environment Committee. They went through a sort of a re-engineering, and she was unfortunately forced to drop out of our group. It wasn't because of any difference of opinion; it was due to the re-engineering of committees, and so on. It was unfortunate, but we have done our best to continue to be true to her memory, shall we say, in the contributions she made to this group while she was with us.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I hope you mean the spirit of it. You make it sound like she passed on.

Ms. Sandy Baumgartner: If I might just add to that, we have also gone out and met with people in the agricultural community. For example, we met with the Alberta land and resource committee. We spent a day with them, going over some of their issues.

We certainly have not had representation from the aboriginal community. However, on several occasions, we have met with various individuals from the aboriginal community to try to get at some of their issues. But it certainly is an area we haven't adequately addressed.

Mrs. Karen Redman: It has already been acknowledged, and I guess it's really the task of legislators, such as the people around this committee table, to look at all the competing needs and to try to bring together a bill that will work on the ground.

Mr. Rotherham, I realize Lise Lachapelle, who is your president and CEO, has signed off on approving your recommendations. But to what extent do your members, such as those in B.C. and Alberta, support this? Do you have a consensus? Are there other voices?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: We've had lots of discussions, particularly with the people from B.C., where there is a concentration of endangered species.

A couple of minutes ago, Robert Décarie said there are some companies and some regions of the country that are more susceptible to—the wrong word is “damage”—damage to their interests, let's say, by the implementation of this bill. These people are nervous about what might happen to their interests as a result of the act.

I think it's safe to say they agree with the philosophical approach we've taken. They particularly agree with the idea of inclusion in recovery planning, which, for the forest industry, is where the rubber hits the road, as we say. That is probably one of the most important aspects of this bill. If we can get that right, a lot of good things can happen, and a lot of damage, some imagined, some real, to industry interests will not happen. The same thing goes for private landowners.

So, no, there is no absolute union of purpose and of decision on this. They do agree with the thrust of what we're endeavouring to do, but they're very nervous about some of the impacts, particularly because the federal government has recently seemed to be taking a regional approach to the implementation of some of its legislation: there's more weight in the country here, shall we say, than there is over here.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Is that for this piece of legislation, or are you making that as a general statement?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: It's certainly there in the matter of navigable waters, in the matter of fisheries, and things like that.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So it's not specifically this legislation.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: No.

One country, one law, one system of implementation, would be good.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I believe Gary Nielsen was the gentleman who came to the table and then went back. I'd like to pose a question to him, if I may.

You talked about the three-“s” method of shoot, shovel, and shut up. It's very alarming, and certainly at the heart of what I would tell you, this legislation is trying to avoid that kind of thing by being engaging and by inviting people to come in.

Did you say at the beginning of your speech that you were from Newfoundland, or am I getting you mixed up with another presenter?

Mr. Gary Nielsen: No, I'm from eastern Ontario.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Are you with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources?

Mr. Gary Nielsen: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Do you have examples of this that you could provide to the committee that this is happening right now?

Mr. Gary Nielsen: Yes, I do, in fact. I can't name names, obviously, but....

• 1045

Mrs. Karen Redman: If it takes too long, you could give it to us in written form, but I would be interested in having that information.

Mr. Gary Nielson: It will probably take one minute. The species of concern is the loggerhead shrike. The Ontario legislation is fairly reactionary. It identifies habitat and puts it on maps in municipal offices. There's no mechanism to notify the landowners. So I know of instances where the first awareness landowners.... Every landowner feels they have the right sometime to sever some property for whatever reason. The first time they hear they have a shrike on their property is when their application for severance is denied, because screening has revealed they have an endangered species on their property.

That regulation says the nest has to be used, and when it is not used for a period of, I think, three years—it could be five—then it no longer is an endangered species habitat. It's very simple to make sure that nest does not get used for five years, then it's no longer habitat and you're free to do what you want on the property. Because of the way the landowners are notified, that's fairly common. That's the word that goes out in the rural community: here's what a nest looks like, make sure you don't have any on your property. We know it happens.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Does it happen with other instances, or specifically just the loggerhead shrike?

Mr. Gary Nielson: That's the only one I have personal knowledge of, but as a concept it's there.

The Chair: Thank you,

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer, please.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Good morning. The field of this legislation is entirely new to me. I am trying to absorb a sea of information today. I would like to ask two highly different questions.

First, I want to touch upon the federal safety net. Those four paragraphs make me a bit anxious because you express very serious doubts about the ability to foster harmony between federal and provincial legislation. You seem to be saying that it would be quite impossible in any province. You use words like “convoluted”, “uncertain”, “shaky”. It worries me. I would like you to tell me which two or three points I should remember most from this presentation.

I would like you to tell me what is really problematic and maybe suggest one or two very clear solutions that would be ideal. You are claiming that this bill is completely wrong but there must be interesting things, things to do. You must also have solutions.

Mr. Marc Johnson: I can only partially answer this question which is very important.

Our group represents five organisations, but only four of them are represented here today. The missing representative, Ms. Elizabeth May, a lawyer, could answer that question accurately. I am sorry. She will be appearing before this committee in May, I believe, and it is a very important question to her. All I can tell you is yes, there are measures that could be taken but I think that Elizabeth could give you a better answer. I am sorry.

Mr. Pierre Gratton: I could maybe answer that question.

Like you said, that aspect is problematic. The first problem is that the safety net will be applied only if the federal government is of the opinion that the measures taken by a province are inadequate. The federal big brother will tell the provinces they are not good enough and will remedy the situation. We think that it will undermine the spirit of cooperation. But this is only one aspect.

The second one—Elizabeth, being a lawyer, could have explained it better—was raised by different lawyers. According to them, this way of doing things, in which case federal legislation would only apply in discretionary situations, is unconstitutional. That aspect poses a problem. We very well know that the federal cannot table before Parliament legislation that the Department of Justice considers unconstitutional. The Department of Justice must be convinced that the legislation is constitutional but according to the opinions we received it is not sure.

• 1050

This is what worries us. The last thing that our group wishes is having to rework the whole legislation three, four or five years down the road because the Supreme Court deemed one of its aspects unconstitutional. We want a much stronger and clearer approach. For example, direct prohibitions regarding the species and their residence clearly come under federal jurisdiction but the legislation does not go as far as it could in regulating that area. We also believe that the safety net will be better accepted if those measures are in place.

The Chair: Mr. Décarie, be short, please.

Mr. Robert Décarie: I will be short. We are suggesting two directions, two solutions.

First, we eliminate the safety net for the individuals and their residence as we recommend that prohibitions apply everywhere, which would eliminate the provisions that allow the safety net to be used. We think it would be less obnoxious if it applied uniformly from the start in all provinces instead of the federal government suddenly intervening under the pretext that things are not done right.

Those measures apply in the case of provisions regarding cruelty to animals, which does not pose a major problem. It is possible to enter into bilateral agreements with the provinces which would be responsible for their implementation if the government or Environment Canada are afraid that the provinces try to escape their obligations under the pretext that the federal government is in charge of prohibitions. That's it for individuals and their residence.

In the case of the habitat, the situation is more complex. There is overlapping of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Firstly, we are proposing re-establishing a climate of national cooperation and making governments work together.

Secondly, we are proposing that the federal government does its share. It is very difficult for the federal government to intervene at leisure with its safety net when they don't even know if they will do the work on their own lands and protect their own species. What kind of a message do they send the provinces? They will have the benefit of loopholes while being able to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction when they deem necessary.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: It is reassuring.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Before we launch the second round, I have one observation and one question—actually two observations.

The emergency this morning quite clearly is—as you repeatedly emphasize and with which, I think, all of us agree—the necessity for an intensive, comprehensive, and durable education, information, and advocacy program for whatever legislation will emerge in the end from this exercise. Bringing the public on stream, so to speak, could make an enormous difference. That observation is one that will have to also be transmitted to the minister because that type of program—a participaction, so to speak, in terms of endangered species protection—will require good funding and creative thinking.

The clarification I would like to pass on, Mr. Johnson, is that in connection with the habitat of migratory birds, the recollection that we have from the Department of Justice official, when he appeared before us, was that he disagreed with Justice La Forest's opinion that the federal government can do whatever it wants on the habitat of migratory birds. There definitely is federal jurisdiction. The disagreement is on the extent of the federal jurisdiction. So it's important—I don't know whether it was Mr. Johnson or Mr. Gratton who made an intervention to that effect.

• 1055

I would like to ask Mr. Rotherham a question, but first of all, I want to say that I find your reference number 10 to tightening exemptions and the recommendations that you make very helpful. In view of the fact that many of your members operate on the basis of provincial permits or licences, for instance, logging licences—if you like—could you give us today, or perhaps at a later date, specific recommendations on how agreements, licences, and permits issued by provincial governments could be made consistent with this legislation?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: That would certainly require some thought, you're right.

As an opening comment, I would say that one of the things that the forest products industry finds the most troubling about this is the possible impact of federal actions under SARA affecting the way an approved management plan—a 10-year agreement licence—granted by a provincial government within its competence, within its jurisdiction, could be frustrated by the implementation of this federal act. That's why we score and underscore and emphasize and write in red that we would really like to see the accord being the main philosophy that Canadian federal and provincial jurisdictions use to solve these problems. That will take us out of jurisdictional conflicts, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Rotherham, the accord doesn't solve this problem. The accord is very vague.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: Only when all of the adults who signed the accord have done what they agreed to do will the accord solve the problem.

The Chair: Can we count on some recommendations from you in due course?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: We could elaborate on that a little bit in writing to this committee. We can share our views on this with provincial associations, but it is not within the competence of the association for which I work to communicate on such matters directly with provincial governments. We, too, have our field of jurisdiction, if you will.

The Chair: Red tape. Whatever you can do.

Thank you.

Let us move onto the second round, until we are thrown out of this room. Very briefly, one question each.

Mr. Mills, and we have Mr. Comartin, Mr. Herron, and Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bob Mills: Again, I commend you for your cooperation and what you've had to say. I just wish you had the oil and gas industry and the farmers and ranchers on your side sitting at the table as well.

Certainly next week when I meet groups of 400 or 500 at a time, I know what they're going to say. I guess that's really my question. They are going to tell me that it's the same as the U.S., and they're going to give me hundreds of U.S. examples of where legislation like this hasn't worked. How do you answer that question?

Mr. Marc Johnson: I suggest it's a very different approach from the U.S. legislation if you look at the details of it. The U.S. legislation—

Mr. Bob Mills: I know that. How do you communicate that?

Mr. Pierre Gratton: You could tell them they're wrong.

Mr. Bob Mills: Sure. Have you seen what happens when you tell 400 ranchers they're wrong?

Mr. Marc Johnson: It's a very difficult issue. There's been a lot of misinformation and miscommunication, so there are many unfounded fears. There are fears founded in fact, but there are many unfounded fears. There's no simple solution to that. I think as we've spoken to, in a post-SARA environment there's an incredible need for public education, I would say. In a pre-SARA environment there has been—I know CWS has been doing some of that and so have we, but a lot more can be done.

• 1100

Mr. Bob Mills: A lot of them will be bringing their shovels.

Ms. Sandy Baumgartner: I'd just like to go back to what's been said by many of my colleagues about the importance of an inclusive recovery process—having those people involved on the ground. Perhaps some of us could provide you with some constructive examples, such as the example Don provided concerning the pine marten recovery planning process, because I think that's a model of how this can work and what makes it different from the U.S.

The Chair: This is a classic area for public education and information eventually, yes.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I had two questions, but I'll just ask one.

Mr. Rotherham and maybe Mr. Nielson, on the issue of mens rea versus due diligence, Mr. Nielson suggested that it's premature at this point to go to due diligence. Have you any sense of what a proper timeframe would be for the country as a whole where due diligence would be more logical?

Mr. Tony Rotherham: I guess it depends upon how the requirements of due diligence are scoped—if you will—within the legislation. We believe there should be in the regulations some language that scopes what people's responsibilities are. That would be one step, sir.

Another step would be to provide adequate information—this applies to all of us, but particularly to private land owners, of which I am also one in the Eastern Townships of Quebec—so that they are able to do due diligence. I think we've agreed around this table, and Mrs. Kraft Sloan has mentioned that this is a very important thing, which needs to be done.

It's also easier to do due diligence at any time, under any circumstances, on a small area than on a huge one. A mining company, a forest products company on its mill site of two or three or four or five square kilometres, or something like that, can definitely be expected today to do due diligence. For anybody to do due diligence on a million hectares of forest land for very extensive prospecting and exploration activities is a real problem at any time, sir.

I don't know quite how we deal with this, but if people say to an individual that you didn't do your due diligence and therefore you are guilty, the poor individual may reply “How the hell could I do it? I didn't have the information. I can't identify the species. Nobody told me they were on the land. There are no maps to show me what the ranges of these things are. What does it look like? What is its song like? What does its nest look like, and so on?” You then have a person who is the victim of the law rather than somebody who is able to do those good things that the law really wishes to encourage.

The Chair: This underlines the importance of public education, information, advocacy, and the rest.

Mr. Tony Rotherham: Yes.

The Chair: Our colleagues from the health department—or the health committee—are waiting and I apologize to them because we are infringing on their time.

Would Mrs. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron perhaps postpone their questions or ask their questions privately when we adjourn, so that we don't keep our colleagues waiting?

Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If it's possible, because we've been hearing a lot about shoot, shovel, and shut up, could you provide the committee with written documentation concerning whether there have been studies or surveys on this? It would be very helpful.

The Chair: Yes. Mr. Herron, would you agree that you can ask the question privately?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just for clarification, and I thank the witnesses for coming, can we visit the schedule and the witnesses, and committee members could put in their wish witness for the next meeting, so that we could maybe decide that?

The Chair: You have already been invited to do so at the beginning of the meeting.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I just wanted to clarify that everybody understood.

The Chair: Sure, thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.