ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to you all. Of course we welcome the witnesses today to this session on Bill C-5. The fact that there are so few members is due to the fact that some have been attending meetings as of 7:30 a.m. and will be joining us as soon as they're out or their previous meeting is over.

The quorum rule allows us to start with three. We are now four and we will build up the numbers.

Before welcoming you all, there are a couple of reflections I would like to put forward and perhaps hear your comments about, emanating from yesterday's meeting. The two major points that are still fresh in my memory are the fact that the witnesses did not seem to be aware of the fact that in four provinces mandatory habitat protection has been enforced and without compensation for some time, except perhaps for Alberta, and this, until now at least, without imposing any hardship on them.

That came as a surprise to me at least. It is an item that perhaps we may need to gather some more information about. Either it means that the provincial legislation is not really enforced or, if it is enforced, it is not causing hardships, or somewhere in between. But we need to know a little bit more, and it would be helpful if our researchers would do some digging on that.

The second item has to do with stewardship and compensation, and on that, unfortunately, we were not as clear in our questions as we should have been. In the stewardship process, once it is launched, as I understand it at least, there is an agreement that includes some form of reward or compensation, some kind of monetary agreement within the stewardship process. If that is correct, perhaps we should have how it would work confirmed so that this fact is broadcast out there in the farming community.

• 0910

Then of course we need the confirmation that compensation is a way of dealing with those who are unable to engage in a stewardship program. These are distinctions that need to be clarified. If I haven't put it in a correct manner, of course, it would be nice to be corrected on that.

Finally, there is the 100% compensation issue. Thinking about it last night, I asked myself, why shouldn't it be 100%? Jack Horner gave us an example about being compensated for postponing his grass-cutting by two weeks on the request of Ducks Unlimited, and being fully compensated. Why should it be 50%, or whatever? So we have to come to grips a little bit with that.

Also, as you know, that aspect is not included in the legislation. It would be part of the regulations. But at least we should have on record some kind of conclusion as to what the collective thinking of this committee is all about if and when the regulations, hopefully within the next hundred years, will be written.

Could I invite some comments from members present on what was just said?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the first issue you raised, the other thing I had some sense the witnesses would have responded to is that the compensation issue really hasn't reared its head extensively at the provincial level because the legislation is relatively new. I think any research we do in that regard, or our researchers do, should take that into account. Has it not been a problem at the provincial level because the provincial laws are relatively new, because they're only three to five years old?

The Chair: In the case of Alberta.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In the case of Alberta in particular.

The Chair: Yes, but not in the other provinces.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So it may be worthwhile doing that comparison if they say, yes, it's not a problem in Alberta because it's only been three years, but it's starting to come up, as they suggested, at every committee meeting. We may be able to look at Ontario and the other provinces that have had it longer and say it hasn't really come up there either, if that is in fact the case. Or if it is coming up, then the committee should be aware of that. I agree with you.

The other point I would make, Mr. Chair, is with regard to the whole issue of compensation. You will recall, when the assistant deputy minister was here, we were asking questions about when the regulations would be available. I think when we hear that type of testimony, it just highlights the need for those to be circulated, at least to this committee and perhaps into the more general community.

If we could have access to those regulations if they're getting close to being finished on the compensation issue, it certainly would be helpful. It was obvious yesterday that there's a great fear there, but there's also at least some misinformation about the consequences.

The final point I would make—I was going to make it in my last round yesterday but we ran out of time—is about, again, the fear, the concern that was being expressed over the issue of the size of the fines on the enforcement side. I'm just putting this on the record of this committee. Those fines are to deal with the whole of the country and all of the potential people or corporations who could in fact infringe the act, perhaps in some very gross ways.

So we need those large fines. The reality is that the individual farmer-rancher, who in some ways breaches the law, even if convicted, is looking at a very minimal fine, if you look at any kind of jurisprudence on this type of legislation. The fine would probably be suspended in most cases if you follow the patterns. I don't see any reason why a judiciary would not follow their normal pattern. Or if there was a fine, it would be down at the low end of the $500 to $5,000 type of range.

• 0915

I'm not demeaning the size of that or the importance of it, but it's not the $50,000 or the $300,000 or the million, which clearly is designed to deal with a flagrant violation, because it's the top end in every case, by a large multinational MacMillan-Bloedel type of company. If there was some flagrant violation of the legislation by this sort of company, that's when this kind of penalty would be imposed.

The Chair: Thank you. That's very helpful.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): I think that revelation about habitat protection begs the question of how is “habitat” defined in these provincial acts. What constitutes habitat? What really is...? Until we have some indication about whose definition of habitat is going to be accepted, I don't think we can talk about mandatory protection intelligently, because there's enough anecdotal evidence that has presented itself that protecting land, for instance acreage or whatever, does not necessarily amount to the rehabilitation or the protection of a species. So there are a lot of uncertainties there.

On the question of compensation and penalty that Mr. Comartin brought up, there's a word I think we should pay some attention to, and that is “wilful”. The business of when damage is done to a species wilfully or not wilfully I think deserves a good deal of discussion by this committee.

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): The wilfulness of the act is one of the sentencing principles that the bill would make relevant. So even if it's a strict liability offence, as is currently what's proposed in the bill, there is this provision that specifically sets out principles judges would be required by the legislation to take into account, including the intentional nature of any offence.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? We are concluding a quick review of yesterday's items that emerged during the meeting.

All right. If there are no further comments, we'll welcome Mr. deMarsh, Madam Mauch, Mr. Affleck, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Demulder, and Mr. Bonar.

Would you like to proceed, possibly with a short statement? Who would like to go first?

Mr. Bob Demulder (Director, Forestry and Transportation, Alberta Forest Products Association): Good morning, members. My name is Bob Demulder and I'm the director of forestry with the Alberta Forest Products Association. With me today is Dr. Rick Bonar, professional biologist and chief biologist with Weldwood of Canada.

We are here on behalf of the Alberta Forest Products Association and we have a presentation we'd like to walk you through. There is some briefing material that was sent earlier that summarizes who the Alberta Forest Products Association is, so I won't get into a lot of detail on that. What I'll do is quickly get down to some background.

We've been involved in the development of SARA since Bill C-65. We clearly support the principles behind SARA-type legislation. We've been an active member with the Land Resource Partnership and are strongly in support of their position on the bill. There was a presentation that was made to this committee on April 3 by Peter Miller and Stan Klassen, and I know you've had other folks from that group here. In fact, I believe David Pope was here yesterday.

We are also involved with SARWG through the FPAC group, and we are currently cooperating with FPAC on their response to the chairman's request for how forest management processes might integrate with SARA. In fact, some of the information we have today is perhaps a precursor to that.

Dr. Bonar and I are both members of the Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee, which is the Alberta-based program to manage species at risk.

• 0920

Basically, there are a number of concerns we have with SARA. However, in light of the short timelines we thought we would deal specifically with just a couple. They are essentially about the lack of certainty and clarity and are related to approvals, authorizations, and agreements in the act, especially the delegation of the competent minister's authority to the provinces.

As to mens rea strict liability, I know you've probably heard this multiple times, but we're going to try to show you an option we think might work here.

As I said, we have other concerns with the act, but in light of the timeline we'll just stick to what we have currently here.

What we'd like to do is actually demonstrate how the forest industry might implement the act as it's currently written. To accomplish this we perhaps need to take a bit of liberty and give you an overview of some forest dynamics and forest management planning processes. From this I hope we can highlight where we believe the difficulties will arise.

I would note that we bring these comments to you as a professional forester, which I am, and as a biologist with expertise in forestry and wildlife management, which Rick is. We're not experts in the field of drafting federal legislation.

However, having said that, I have tried to read where I think these things will impact on us. I would suggest, if we could put it forth subtly, that this committee consider some editing for plain language. It is we, as practitioners, who have to implement this act, and it's not what I'd call the cleanest act I've ever seen written.

I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Bonar so he can present some of our background material, and we'll carry on from there.

Mr. Rick Bonar (Chief Biologist, Weldwood of Canada; Alberta Forest Products Association): Thank you, Bob.

Honourable members, I'd like to talk to you a little about how we do forest management planning so you can see the context within which we may be able to incorporate the principles and intent of SARA into our process.

First, we've changed forest habitat over time and space, but clearly the forest industry doesn't have the mandate to manage either habitat or wildlife populations. That remains a government responsibility, one split between the provinces and the federal government.

We are, however, actively involved in habitat and wildlife management. In Alberta the forest industry collectively spends around $4 million every year on wildlife habitat and research. Also, we have a long history of cooperation with governments and other organizations on this issue. For example, in Alberta my company has been involved with wildlife issues for more than 20 years.

We wanted to talk about the principles of habitat in relation to your question, Mr. Reed, because habitat in the forest is indeed very dynamic. It changes in location, in amount, and over time. It's important to recognize that this is natural in forests, particularly the forests in Alberta, which are disturbed naturally, predominantly by forest fires.

What we do in forest management is seek to reduce the rate of natural disturbances such as fires and insects and replace a portion of that with timber-harvesting management. This doesn't mean of course that timber harvesting is the same as fire, and we recognize the differences. However, as you can see in the photo there, fire has a very large impact on the landscape—this is a forest fire in our area from the fall of 1997—and burns in some cases hundreds of thousands of hectares in a single event.

What we do on a smaller scale is try to leave behind residual material that approximates the residual material left after a fire. Again, I stress that it's not the same, but we believe we can get the same ecological result. We control the rate of harvesting so that it's similar to the rate from fire.

Our forest management plans are of course subject to provincial requirements because of the provincial responsibility for forest management. They are approved through a detailed provincial regulatory review process. Once we have our approvals, they represent our authority to operate on crown lands in the province of Alberta. These approvals are related to planning that is implemented over very long periods and updated continually.

How do we do that? We forecast how the forest will change and assess the implications of those changes for many values, including wildlife habitat. We manage forest landscape over time at multiple scales, not just at the individual cut-block level, but at the large landscape level as well. This process has the unique ability to enable us to manage for the habitat requirements of multiple species, including species at risk, but also other species that may become at risk in the future.

We can adjust our plans to incorporate recovery plans of listed species and to prevent additional species from becoming at risk. This really supports the spirit and intent of SARA, the national accord, and Alberta's endangered species program.

• 0925

But there are two key concepts about habitat—again related to your question, Mr. Reed—that we'd like to highlight. If you look at habitat and how it changes through time, there are really two components to habitat. One might be what you'd call static habitat. It's stable; it stays put. Another is mobile habitat. It moves; it's momentary on the landscape. Both of these may be important when you're dealing with an individual species.

Just to provide an example, I'll use the woodland caribou for the next part of the discussion.

If you look at how a forest develops soon after a disturbance, whether that be fire or logging, saplings are established, and the trees grow older and eventually become what we call a mature and old forest. And you might say that a mature and old forest is associated with caribou habitat.

But the forest changes. If you look at the dark green on this example, those are the mature and old stands in 1950 on a landscape of one million hectares—10,000 square kilometres in this instance. And it changes. Here's how it might look in 50 years; here's how it might look in 100 years. These are based on some rather sophisticated models of natural forest dynamics and don't include any harvesting whatsoever. This is what happens in the forest naturally.

So when we're talking about critical habitat, if it's static, it works very well where the habitat is not likely to change. Here's an example: the Banff Springs snail, which is on the COSEWIC list of endangered species, lives in a very few hot springs in Banff National Park. It's quite easy to define the concept of critical habitat for the Banff Springs snail as those hot springs, and it's easy to say that should be protected.

But when you talk about critical habitat for caribou, which is dependent on how old the forest is and how long it's been since a disturbance, we need to be able to manage critical habitat that moves around naturally and in the face of human activities.

Another example here is the famous black cat in the Alberta foothills, which was formed by a forest fire in 1927. Here's a photograph of the same area taken a few years ago. You can see the change in the forest through natural forest succession. In fact, you can see the remains of 16 different forest fires in both of those images if you knew exactly where to look at the different ages of forest.

As another example, the forest in the foothills of Alberta was naturally very much more open because of frequent forest fires back around the turn of the century. Since then, forest fires have been successfully suppressed, and the forest has changed, as you see in the image here.

So how are we going to work this into a recovery planning process? We think we can do it this way: in keeping with an accord, once a species is designated, the recovery plan process would be initiated. For the most part, we believe the provinces will lead the process with the assistance of the federal government, again in keeping with the accord. And as the recovery planning process is implemented, critical habitat will be defined for each species.

A recovery plan, I think, must specify if critical habitat is static or mobile for the species. If it's static, of course, we believe it should be protected. However, mobile critical habitat is where it's a little more problematic. We need to manage that on the landscape over time. So the recovery plan, in fact, must authorize management of critical habitat and the associated disturbance, which could be associated as harassment of the species, if that critical habitat is mobile and must be managed in order to conserve it.

We believe that management tools such as timber harvesting, according to an approved plan, would be a permissible activity if in fact the habitat needs to be managed in order to protect it. However, since the recovery plan doesn't provide the legal mechanism right now for us to operate, because it's a federal act or a federal process, the conditions and requirements of the recovery plan need to be incorporated into our forest management planning process.

So what we would do is we would take a recovery plan, implement that, incorporate it into our forest management planning process, including, if relevant, permissions to manage critical habitat if necessary to ensure the species' protection and recovery. And then we would, of course, have feedback mechanisms running back and forth from the forest management planning process to the recovery plan to see that the recovery plan requirements are being met, and vice versa. We would then have our forest management plan continue to be approved by the province, and we think that's how we could make the process work. We could bring it into our system. However, we do have some issues with the act as it's currently written to enable us to do that, and Bob will continue from here on that.

• 0930

Mr. Bob Demulder: As we were saying, or as Rick had to portray through that little quick review of how we do forest management planning, which is obviously a lot more intricate than that, I guess our issue pops up where the competent minister may delegate his or her authority to the provinces, clause 10 and others—and I don't find particularly where they are; I think 74, 75, and perhaps 84. That was one of the things we couldn't quite grasp—which one actually applied. But in our opinion, these agreements are critical, and they need to be developed prior to implementing the act in order to promote a smooth transition. Currently what we have is a recovery planning process that would come out of the SARA legislation and no way really to implement it. We would suggest that the implementation process is the forest management plan, specifically for the forest industry.

So we are saying that provincial approval processes for forest management plans that meet the intent and spirit of a recovery plan should be formalized or recognized in SARA.

And although not currently a problem, any agreement, etc., or permit that needs to be exempted from CEAA requirements for a further environmental assessment...as I understand it, that is not necessarily the case there, but there is always that potential. Our comment is that the recovery plan only needs to be completed once and it doesn't require a second opinion or delay through CEAA.

As we've said earlier, although we support the LRP position to move the strict liability offences of the act, we propose a potential alternative as follows: once a recovery plan is built into a forest management plan, this should clearly constitute the due diligence defence required by the act's strict liability offences. All subsequent offences that may occur by a company or individual operating under approved forest management plans should be mens rea offences. This would provide the confidence and certainty the forest industry needs to continue to operate.

In summary, the AFPA strongly supports the land resource partnership position that was presented to you previously. We believe Alberta's forest management planning process is well positioned to integrate the needs of SARA and that Alberta's endangered species recovery strategy can ensure that designated species on the forest landscape can be protected, and it also can help additional species from becoming at risk.

Critical habitat for many forest-dependent species is dynamic and naturally changing in location and amount over time. As a result, we must manage for habitat, not necessarily protect it. Both situations may be relevant. The act needs to make provisions to permit and authorize activities that may affect a species or its habitat positively or negatively, provided that it is approved under the recovery plan.

Federal authority must be delegated to the province through agreements that allow the provinces to approve forest management plans that are in compliance with a recovery plan. Agreements should be expedited to ensure that the transition to the new act is predictable and manageable. Strict liability offences should be eliminated or, at a minimum, not apply under an approved forest management plan that is an integrated recovery plan.

Thanks for your time, and we'd be happy to take questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Demulder. Thank you, Mr. Bonar.

Mr. deMarsh, would you like to proceed?

Mr. Peter deMarsh (President, Canadian Federation of Wood Lot Owners): Thank you.

I'd like to start by giving a brief description of who woodlot owners are. We are 420,000 families across the country. We're present in all provinces. Total ownership is about 19 million hectares. It represents about 8% of Canada's productive forest. Woodlots, in fact, are the forests that most Canadians see most of the time. We're the forests in the inhabited parts of the country. We also represent a significant source of raw material for industry. About 17% of industrial wood supply across the country comes from woodlots. It's worth about $1.5 billion a year to the rural economy.

We have a strong tradition, on the part of many of us, of good stewardship. Overall, our associations across the country have indicated strong support for the principles of the act. This is not because we're more virtuous than anybody else; it's simply because we are pretty close to a cross-section of Canadian society and our views reflect the opinions of Canadians as a whole. We want to see effective measures in place to protect endangered species.

• 0935

Our land is a natural mosaic due to the fact that each individual owner of 100, 200, 300 acres will have different objectives, will use different methods of harvesting. So when you look at a woodlot landscape, you will see a tremendously diverse mixture of forest types. This in fact is a tremendous advantage to us from the point of view of broad public policy aimed at protecting diversity of habitat.

It also makes many of us feel very vulnerable when we consider legislation such as species at risk, since we as a group may in many landscapes own the last fragments of natural forest and may be particularly at risk for future restriction.

We as a group have a very difficult history with land-use regulation and with policies for compensation in the case of expropriation. Often expropriation procedures are highly adversarial. In general, we view with great suspicion legislation that potentially will restrict land use. We view it with suspicion because our experience is that similar types of legislation are often administered in a highly arbitrary and insensitive way.

As part of this backdrop, it's important to recognize the struggle that many land-based family businesses are going through from day to day to survive.

Finally, beyond this, the ownership of land in our tradition in this country involves very deep emotions, especially where the land has been owned for several generations. In particular, we will go as a group, as individuals, to considerable lengths to keep our land out of the clutches of government.

So as a background portrait, I'd like to offer that, Mr. Chairman.

I want to address three points. One is compensation, the second is the relationship between compensation and incentives, and then a final quick word on the issue of due diligence, which my colleagues have already addressed.

There are two approaches to the issue of compensation. One is to take a hard-line property rights approach. This is a matter of principle. The second is to take what I would describe as a pragmatic approach, namely, how do we ensure the strongest possible voluntary response from woodlot owners, and how do we avoid the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” syndrome from the U.S.?

The minister, Mr. Anderson, said the following to a conference in Guelph about a year ago: “People who work on the land must be partners with the government or the legislation will fail.” This was an extremely welcome statement, compared to some of the comments made when the legislation was originally introduced.

The issue from our point of view is one we very much share with the government, namely, how can the partnership Mr. Anderson referred to be achieved so that in fact the legislation will succeed?

Dr. Pearse made a tremendous contribution to this debate. His recognition of the need for compensation was very welcome. On the other hand, his proposal to compensate at a 45% rate is simply unacceptable. We recognize his reasons for caution. He identified the very complex issue of conflicting jurisdiction. He recognized that compensation in an area of land-use restriction, land-use regulation, involves something of a legal precedent. We don't have much of a legal tradition for that type of compensation in response to regulatory restrictions. He recognized, or at least, I should say, he argued, that too generous, too easy compensation will result in less voluntary action. That's a point I'm going to come back to.

There is also a feeling, not particularly expressed by Dr. Pearse but part of the debate around this issue, especially from some environmentalists, that we shouldn't have to reward woodlot owners or other land owners for doing the right thing. Clearly protecting habitat for endangered species is a very right thing. Virtue, I suppose the argument goes, should be its own reward.

Well, the problem is that in this case we have one right thing potentially in conflict with another right thing, which is maintaining viable land-based family businesses. We think this is also a value of a certain importance to Canadians.

• 0940

It's important to consider the types of losses we feel we may potentially be subjected to. Land may be subject to reduced use. For instance, we may be prevented from clear-cutting and so on, even in small, carefully planned patches; however, selection logging may be okay in some circumstances. More drastically, land may be taken out of production entirely.

Either single loss or some combination of the two may have a number of consequences: reduced revenue for the ongoing operation or added costs of production. It costs roughly 30% to 50% more to selection-log than to clear-cut. Other costs may be involved, such as the need to travel greater distances to get to an area of active management around a protected site on my land. Fencing is a very obvious example of an added cost. The land will be subject to reduced market value.

For many landowners, as I'm sure you heard yesterday from the agricultural community, our land is our RRSP. Certainly urban Canadians would take a dim view of the notion that their RRSPs would be subject to confiscation and then compensated for at a rate of 45%. There are opportunity costs involved in having capital, having financial assets, tied up in land subject to a reduction in or cessation of production.

All of these things are likely to exist in combination. Clearly many of them will threaten the viability of a good many family businesses.

In addition to all of this, the administrative processes around either voluntary cooperation or compensation will involve some expense and lost time. Further, our larger communities will lose out due to reductions in raw materials that lead in turn to losses of employment in local processing facilities.

This whole discussion centres on what some economists call non-market public goods. These are goods benefitting society as a whole. Woodlot owners, for instance, contribute to clean water, pleasing roadside scenery, wildlife habitat. There is no market for these goods, no mechanism for landowners to recoup some of the costs they contribute to producing them.

This concept hasn't gotten very far in public debates or public policy considerations in Canada, but it is coming. It is now actively debated and acted upon in Europe, either through subsidies, dedicated taxes, or other mechanisms. It's something we're certainly going to have to come to grips with soon.

For this legislation to succeed, society must give woodlot owners a very clear message: because we are all the beneficiaries of your efforts, we're prepared to compensate you for losses in both revenue and market value of your assets. We will not take your contribution for granted.

I'll add that good models exist in the country for fair, adequate, and reasonable compensation. For instance,

[Translation]

l'Union des producteurs agricoles

[English]

in Quebec, has a very good agreement with Hydro-Québec. It's called the

[Translation]

l'Entente sur le passage des lignes de transport en milieux agricole et forestier.

[English]

If you're not aware of this as a model, I certainly want to bring it to your attention.

As for the connection between compensation and incentives, the concern, as we understand it, centres on how compensation that is too generous and too easy to get will result in less voluntary action by woodlot owners. The argument goes that the more you have of one, the less you're going to have of the other. It's a zero-sum proposition.

Our contention is that in fact the connection between the two is just the opposite for the majority of woodlot owners. A compensation policy, rates, process, and so on, perceived by landowners to be fair and fully respectful of the financial impact on their businesses of whatever restriction their land is going to be subject to, will encourage more, not less, voluntary action.

• 0945

Certainly on the face of it, the concern is logical. It appears reasonable. If we were observers and the issue was a different one—another interest group who was making the argument I've just made—as taxpayers we would be likely to say this doesn't make sense. It's counter-intuitive. As our government, we want you to make sure that not one cent is paid out for compensation unnecessarily.

All I can do is try to make the argument as clearly as possible that in this case the logic is wrong. As we understand it, the emphasis is going to be on voluntary cooperation, supported by incentives. We're going to assume the failure will not be because the incentive package is weak, inappropriate, or ineffective. Let's assume strong, effective incentives and that the process is not going to be overly bureaucratic, but is going to be respectful of landowners and sensitive to what we bring to the partnership.

Let's assume further that the incentives are going to be directed to real, actual out-of-pocket costs for taking specific actions—an obvious example is fencing along streams. We're being told that if compensation is unreasonably generous, these types of voluntary cooperative arrangements will often not be established. But what is really being said here?

Both sides desire a spirit of cooperation. We all say we want this. Is it going to be encouraged by the knowledge that the proposed compensation will be limited to a small portion of losses and will be difficult to get? Will this contribute to a spirit of cooperation? What we're really talking about is a very soft form of coercion, nothing more, nothing less.

We are not sitting back hoping that our land will be designated and we'll then be able to use the provisions under the legislation to cash in. There are many easier ways to do this. We're talking about families who are often struggling to avoid exactly this—to avoid selling out.

If I were to tell you no landowners, no woodlot owners, will unreasonably seek access to compensation, I'd be obviously misleading you. But to protect taxpayers, to protect the emphasis on cooperation at all costs against the risk that a few will unreasonably profit, will do enormous damage to the goodwill of the large majority and risk turning many of us from active, willing stewards into adversaries. It'll be very expensive to enforce and will prove to be bad for endangered species.

I have a quick closing comment on due diligence. We support the view advanced by industry today and earlier. It's not appropriate for small private landowners. We don't have detailed inventories of species or habitat on our land. We don't have the resources to develop these by ourselves. We must not be penalized for normal forestry practices, which we had no reason to suspect at the time were negligent. Retroactive penalties must be specifically excluded. Before the possibility of liability is created, it's very important that accurate inventory work be done, education programs be established, and direct notice to affected landowners be provided.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to stress with all of this that woodlot owners across the country are committed to being part of the solution here. We're urging the government to work with us.

• 0950

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. deMarsh, for your thoughtful presentation.

May I be so bold as to reassure you that you needn't fear unreasonably generous compensation. Thank you.

Ms. Mauch, please.

Mr. Peter N. Affleck (Manager, Forestry, Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to present our comments to you this morning.

My name is Peter Affleck and I'm a registered professional forester in the province of British Columbia. I'm here today representing the Council of Forest Industries.

Ms. Anne Mauch (Director, Fibre Supply, Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia): My name is Anne Mauch. I'm also a registered professional forester, also representing the Council of Forest Industries.

The Council of Forest Industries, or COFI for short, is a trade association representing more than 100 companies in British Columbia. These companies manage forest resources, manufacture lumber, pulp, paper, plywood, and other value-added forest products, and sell these products locally, nationally, and internationally. The forest industry in B.C. represents 275,000 jobs, $18 billion in sales, and $4 billion in government revenues.

COFI's vision is global competitiveness for the B.C. industry. Under our guiding philosophy, COFI strives to be an advocate for sound, environmentally sensitive forest management and industrial practices. The B.C. forest industry unequivocally supports the protection of species at risk. The industry commends the federal government for its efforts to provide this protection. Although the objective of protecting species at risk receives almost universal support among Canadians, there are many different views about how best to achieve this objective.

This should not be surprising. Much is at stake: the subject matter is complex, and the issues cross biological, socio-economic, geographical, and constitutional boundaries. In this context, balancing needs, values, viewpoints, and legislation is a significant challenge.

In our submission to the committee, we have identified several positive aspects of the bill. We have also pointed out areas where we believe improvement is advisable. Our submission, which you should have, includes an overview of our comments on the bill, clause-by-clause comments, and specific recommendations for amendments.

Today we'd like to speak to three points. First we would like to encourage the government to move ahead with this legislation as quickly as is reasonably possible. Specifically, we would like to see a bill passed this year. It is important to recognize that this legislation is one part of the full picture of protecting species at risk.

Certainly in our sector, in our province, good work is already being done and we are making progress. We believe the same is true elsewhere in Canada. However, we are concerned that Canadians may lose sight of this progress in the face of criticism that Canada does not have species at risk legislation in place. We need to provide visible evidence of our commitment to sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. A strong, fair, effective national Species at Risk Act would be such evidence.

This is not to say that the bill should go forward without change. We believe some important improvements are necessary and the work of this committee is critical to seeing that these improvements are made, but we would also say that Bill C-5 does provide much of the foundation needed for sound legislation.

Second, we want to emphasize the importance of cooperation in making further progress. We are pleased the federal government has said that this is the approach to be taken. The National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada is founded on the cooperative model. Our members are much more interested in finding voluntary cooperative solutions than facing regulatory measures.

Regulatory measures are a blunt and inexact instrument. Often they are not well adapted to site-specific situations. They are inflexible, leaving little room for innovation, and often prescribe large, long-term land withdrawals that have an adverse impact on land use. Therefore, our industry has a significant incentive to find better ways to achieve the goal of protecting species at risk.

Although Bill C-5 does contain important efforts to promote a cooperative approach, it also includes the so-called federal safety net. The basic idea is that if the federal government is not satisfied with actions by the provinces to protect species at risk, it will step in. This is not a cooperative model. There is a significant question about whether or not it is constitutionally valid. This means that the act could be challenged. Successful challenges will serve only to undermine Canada's reputation for protecting species at risk.

There is also a very real question about whether or not it is needed. In the spirit of cooperation, we would recommend that the bill not include the safety net. If real evidence is brought forward of significant failure in the future, the safety net concept could be, and should be, revisited.

Mr. Peter Affleck: The third area includes improvements to the bill that we believe are required. Our clause-by-clause submission identifies our proposals in some detail.

• 0955

Today we'll speak to three points: first, the need to enable balancing of all values; secondly, the compensation provisions in the bill; and thirdly, the exemptions and transition process.

The government again is to be commended for recognizing that socio-economic issues and interests should be considered in protecting species at risk. This principle is expressly stated in the preamble to the bill. The principle states that just as there should not be economic development without regard for environmental values, there should not be environmental policy without regard for socio-economic considerations.

There are two key provisions in the bill that are inconsistent with this principle. First, clause 6 sets out the purposes of the bill. This is a critical section that will enable application and guide interpretation of the bill. Although this clause captures very well the protection of species at risk, it does not make mention of any socio-economic issues.

We recommend that this provision be amended to conform with the stated intent of the government to clarify that actions under the bill will not only protect species at risk, but also be consistent with the socio-economic interests of Canadians.

Secondly, clause 41 of the bill identifies the issues that need to be addressed in recovery strategies, but it makes no mention again of socio-economic issues. This is inconsistent with the government's intent, inconsistent with the preamble, which states:

...socio-economic interests, should be considered in developing and implementing recovery measures,

It's inconsistent with the provision that outlines the contents of action plans, which are to implement the recovery strategies and specifically include socio-economic factors.

Again, we recommend that clause 41 be amended to add socio-economics as one of the content issues for recovery strategies.

On the issue of compensation, again we commend the government for recognizing that costs of protecting species at risk should be shared. We are pleased that the compensation provision has been included in the bill. We also commend the government for asking Dr. Peter Pearse to provide recommendations on compensation.

Dr. Pearse has made three key recommendations on compensation: first, that compensation should extend to resource tenure holders, as well as owners of private land, where their legal rights are impaired by an action under SARA; secondly, that compensation should be based on fair market value of rights that are impaired; and thirdly, the process for determining and providing compensation should provide for procedural protection to those whose rights have been impaired, as does other compensation law across Canada. Although it is possible and perhaps preferable to leave some of the details of the compensation system to the regulations, we recommend that these three principles be reflected in the bill itself.

Similar principles are reflected in many statutes across the country that deal with compensation, such as the federal Expropriation Act. Although these acts deal with expropriation, not regulatory measures, the focus is on compensation, not the type of taking.

Some concern has been expressed that providing compensation creates perverse incentives against cooperation. This notion is that people will avoid voluntary solutions and will hold out for some kind of potential windfall gain. We can only speak for our industry, but we have difficulty seeing this happen.

Our interests are remaining in business. We need timber at affordable costs in order to do so. Cash, or even some other form of compensation, is not likely to achieve that goal for us. We would be much more interested in finding a way to protect species at risk, while being able to carry on business. Thus we have a built-in incentive to avoid circumstances that would lead to compensation by finding a more cooperative solution.

Additionally, assuming that a reasonable solution can be implemented cooperatively and a person refuses to proceed cooperatively, the only eligible compensation would be for the legal right impaired, not for a wholesale buyout of that person's property.

Finally, compensation can only be triggered by government action. There is nothing a land user can do unilaterally to trigger it. Thus the government remains in control of whatever the triggering event might be.

What usually causes an end to business or property use, and therefore claims for potentially significant compensation, are decisions that withdraw large areas of land. This might be the most expedient decision to make. It becomes easier, however, when there is no cost to the decision-maker.

We believe the better decisions are not simply large land withdrawals. There are ways to protect species at risk without having to undermine a farm, a ranch, or a forest operation. But there must be incentives for decision-makers to pursue these options instead of potentially the easier withdrawal option.

• 1000

Compensation provisions provide that incentive. We believe the presence of the compensation provision will encourage more innovative solutions that actually do not require compensation to be paid.

The final point we would like to cover today is the exemption and transition provisions in the bill. We again commend the government for recognizing that both types of provisions are required; however, we have concerns with each.

First, the exemption provision is very limited. In fact, it is so limited that it's unlikely to apply to any ordinary land use, whether it is farming, ranching, forestry, or other. To put it another way, the persons and activities that potentially are most in need of an exemption provision would not be eligible.

We are not advocating broad exemptions. We are saying the concept of being able to provide exemptions is a good one, and this power that may or may not be exercised in a particular case should not be inadvertently blocked by a very limited exemption provision.

We recommend that the exemption provisions be amended to ensure exemptions can be applied to ordinary land uses. We emphasize that these exemptions would still be judged on their own merits individually.

Secondly, the transition provision is also very limited. The idea of transition is to recognize that there is considerable activity across Canada that should not all be brought to a halt the day the act or a particular section of the act comes into effect. The bill recognizes this by permitting existing federally authorized activities to continue for a limited period of time. However, there appears to be no similar provision for provincially authorized activities. As most land use activity in Canada is provincially authorized, not federally, it is essential that this transition provision apply to those authorizations as well. We recommend that the bill be amended to include transition for provincial activities.

Our written submission deals with a number of other comments.

To conclude, we believe the committee, with a full review and analysis of our recommendations, will deliver a strong, fair, and effective national Species at Risk Act that balances the needs and values and viewpoints of all Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Affleck and Ms. Mauch.

Tell us, who is currently the president of the Council of Forest Industries?

Ms. Anne Mauch: It's Mr. Ron MacDonald.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McIntyre, would you like to speak?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): How come Ron is not here?

Ms. Anne Mauch: He was busy.

Mr. Wilf McIntyre (National Vice-President, Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee. I appreciate the opportunity to bring a worker's perspective to you on the endangered species. David Haggard, our national president, was unable to come here today. I'm a national vice-president, and I also chair the national environment committee of the IWA.

I grew up in northern Ontario and was a forestry worker. I went into the logging operations in 1966 and worked in operations until about 1980 when I became staff with the IWA.

I'm going to go through the brief that we have here. We also brought our forest policy along to be handed out, which we developed by ourselves, by workers, and which we are very proud of. I think it reflects a lot of areas and especially endangered species.

Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada represents 55,000 Canadians, the majority of whom work in the wood industry. Our union has a long history of involvement in land-use planning, forest management, and natural resource issues. Our members have a strong interest in working towards sustainable forest management, including measures to protect and enhance endangered species.

With appropriate management and stewardship, we know that our forests represent a renewable resource of jobs and economic opportunities that will provide our families and their families. We also know that if we do not manage our forests wisely, the public and the crown will curtail timber harvesting and reduce our access to the resource.

But Canadians should also be aware that the forests supply our country's largest source of export earnings and largest source of jobs outside of major cities. The wood-based industries represent about 320,000 jobs—one out of every 16 in Canada. They support another nearly 500,000 jobs. About 300 Canadian communities depend primarily on the wood industries for at least half of basic sector income.

• 1005

Therefore, we need to balance our economic, social, and environmental needs and desires whenever we consider measures that affect our forests. We must protect and enhance biodiversity. Again, if you take a look at page 7 in our forest policy, we're very committed to this.

We also need the jobs, community stability, government revenue, and export earnings that we gain from our forests. Without the wealth generated from wood products, pulp, paper, and other forest-derived goods, we would not have the luxury of considering problems of wilderness protection or wildlife preservation.

That's why IWAW Canada members have been so closely involved in the development of federal endangered species legislation. Our union has participated fully in various consultation processes and lobbying efforts that have attended the process leading up to Bill C-5. They know that whatever regime is finally developed for species protection in Canada, there is potential for significant effects on our jobs, communities, and futures.

Following the failure of Bill C-65 to find an adequate balance between environmental and economic concerns, we hope the government will find an approach that better recognizes Canadians' needs for jobs, stable communities, and export earnings.

We were heartened when the draft plan released in December 1999 included many of the improvements we advocated: inclusion of socio-economic and social considerations in species recovery plans; stakeholder participation in recovery planning limiting an environmental group's liability to tie up developments in the courts; increased reliance and cooperation; and stewardship initiatives.

However, some problems remained when the legislation Bill C-33, now Bill C-5, was finally tabled in Parliament. Although the plan had declared that protecting species is everybody's responsibility and nobody should be asked to bear an unfair part of the load, there is still a disproportionate burden placed on resource sector workers, their families, and their communities.

In spite of the Minister of Environment's claim that existing programs would suffice to deal with any potential loss of income or employment that results from species protection managers, we know it is not the case.

We are particularly cognizant of the impact that flowed from the application of the United States Endangered Species Act to the habitat of the northern spotted owl in the Pacific northwest. According to the estimates of Professor Robert Lee of the University of Washington, for instance, some 29,000 workers lost their jobs as a result of the owl injunctions and the resulting implementations of Plan 9. These peoples' lives were disrupted and many were uprooted from communities they and their families had lived in for generations.

Although we are aware that there are some differences between the current bill and either the U.S. EPA or Plan 9, we also see in the bill elements that would allow similar impacts to affect Canadian forest workers and their communities. Our members want to work and contribute to Canada's well-being; they want to pay taxes and continue to enjoy the uniquely Canadian way of life that their resource-based jobs make possible.

We therefore urge the committee to consider changes to Bill C-5 that will provide assurances to our members and other resource workers and resource-based communities. Please help us show them that the government means its promise to share the burden of species protection and that they will not be sacrificed on the altar of society's desire to protect species. In particular, we ask that the committee consider changes that strengthen the bill's provisions with respect to social and economic impacts and compensation transition measures.

Although we applaud the references to socio-economic impacts that might flow from recovery planning, both in the preamble to the bill and the action plan stage of the recovery process, this is not enough to protect workers or communities from the fullest effect of lands lost to habitat protection.

• 1010

For instance, the British Columbia government estimates that it could take a 6% to 8% reduction in annual allowable cuts just to protect four species. That means that some 4.3 million to 5.7 million cubic metres of annual harvest would be lost, a reduction that implies the loss of up to 20,000 jobs and about $300 million in revenue to governments, according to the B.C. Council of Forest Industries.

It is crucial then that the bill must contain clear ways in which to weigh the social and economic costs and benefits of species recovery plans. This should include social and economic considerations in both the recovery strategy and action plan stages. To leave it to the second stage, as currently proposed, is not enough, since by then the critical habitat needed to protect the species has already been defined. It seems to us that this encourages maximization of the area to be protected outright at the recovery strategy stage.

For social and economic impacts to be considered, more creative and balanced solutions to species, human interaction, and co-existence would more likely be ensured. This would not only promote better, more even-handed decision-making, but it would also reduce impacts and need for compensation. In addition, we believe the federal cabinet should be mandated to consider social and economic impacts prior to making an order for protection of critical habitat or empowered to modify plans to reduce overly severe impacts.

Finally, in the preamble to the bill there is a reference to the so-called “precautionary principle”, which might be interpreted to outweigh considerations of social and economic impact. It must be clearly stipulated that there must be a balance between these two concerns and that social and economic impacts be directly considered, rather than the current language, which refers only to cost-effective measures. That which is cost-effective to planners or government will be devastating to small groups of resource workers and their communities.

The Chair: Could you sum it up, Mr. McIntyre, so that members can ask you questions?

Mr. Wilf McIntyre: Yes. On compensation and transition issues, in spite of the bold declaration that nobody should be asked to bear an unfair part of the load, we still believe it is exactly what resource workers and communities are being asked to do. In spite of two consultations, three bills, and the report on the subject of compensation prepared by Dr. Peter Pearse, workers and their communities are still expected to shift themselves to the event of a species plan that impairs or destroys their ability to earn a living.

This is blatantly unfair, in spite of a thorough and thoughtful report. And even though we appreciate the opportunity to give the evidence that Dr. Pearse presented us with, we believe he failed to come up with measures that would fully ensure fairness to those who own no land, hold no tenure, and hold no capital. It is unfair and unwise to base entitlement on class rather than on degree of impact. Workers in the forests and other resource workers are potentially just as disrupted in their livelihoods as landowners, tenure holders, and corporations, yet they are to be ignored by the current legislation, while those others are deemed eligible for compensation.

In spite of the environment minister's assurance that existing programs will suffice, we know we are likely to face impacts from species protection measures that no normal program can ameliorate. We have often worked with laid-off employees who try to access federal programs under normal circumstances. All we can say is that Mr. Anderson has never likely needed to do so himself, otherwise he wouldn't have said that.

Even if delivery systems were in peak condition and funding levels adequate to normal circumstances, the severe impact that would flow from a species recovery plan could lead, in the language of the bill, to “extraordinary losses”.

We therefore recommend extraordinary measures that would have to consist of either the extension of compensation to workers or employees attached to companies, tenure holders or landowners on the same basis that's provided to those persons under the bill, or the creation of a transition fund. This fund would have to be of sufficient size to provide interim replacement income, training and retraining opportunities, relocation allowances, opportunities for early retirement and pension bridging, and other transitional requirements of a displaced workforce.

• 1015

A possible model is the recently created fund established to deal with the short-term impacts of the central coast local resource management plan in coastal B.C. Once funding glitches are ironed out, that fund should provide up to $55 million to workers affected by the creation of protected areas and option areas in the central coast region of British Columbia.

Although that might seem like a lot of money, it's worth considering that option to deal with job loss for some 500 workers. These workers would be forced onto social assistance or forced to leave their homes without secure prospects of new jobs, opportunities, or hope.

You can eat up a lot of public funds dealing with the fallout from such devastation, as states and local governments in the Pacific northwest quickly learned. There, they are still picking up the cost of family disruption, marital breakdown, substance abuse, lost tax revenue, and higher social costs in general. It's almost always a pay now or pay later proposition. The benefit of the pay now solution is that it also affords workers a share of dignity and comfort rather than generating anger, resentment, and poverty.

We therefore urge the committee to take seriously the need to deal with the social and economic costs, not just of endangered species legislation but of environmental change in general.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McIntyre.

We have Mr. Mills, Mr. Reed, and Madam Redman.

Mr. Mills, five minutes.

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

I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming, and I certainly appreciate your suggestion about plain-English editing. I think all of us who are expected to understand this who aren't lawyers could certainly agree with that advice. Seeing that we want to communicate and have the general public participate and cooperate, I think that's an excellent suggestion. I trust we can do some work on that.

There are really three areas that I would like you to explore a little bit further. First of all, you've given some indication of provincial-federal conflicts. Being a little bit familiar with the Alberta legislation and B.C., I guess many people would say it's going to be an obvious provincial-federal conflict, leading to potential litigation and legal costs and so on. I'd like you to explore that a little further.

On the socio-economic situation, when that is considered, what sorts of potential litigation and other problems do you see that possibly could come from that?

Third, in the area of compensation, are there other things than money that can be considered by your industries in that regard? How might you look at that?

Mr. Bob Demulder: If you want I'll take a shot at your first one on federal-provincial....

Mr. Bob Mills: Sure.

Mr. Bob Demulder: I don't know if I'd get into how far it would go in terms of legal challenges, but essentially what we've been looking at is when you do a recovery plan under SARA, the recovery plan has no authority to implement anything. It basically says here are some goals and objectives and these are things that need to be developed or managed for. You have to translate that into something to allow you to do it.

We have forest management plans and forest land bases that are allowed to do it. I'm sure you could do it with grazing leases, but you have to translate it to something on the ground. The recovery plan doesn't have any authority in that regard.

The processes that are in place provincially that allow you to do that are capable of doing that. It's this trust level that seems to come up federally and provincially about whether you can say the provinces' processes are compatible with federal concerns and vice versa. It's something we'd like to have hammered out and that comfort level dealt with so that we can go ahead with it. That's essentially where we are coming from.

Mr. Bob Mills: How about the B.C. situation?

Mr. Peter Affleck: Mr. Mills, there are probably a few areas where we could talk to you about potential provincial-federal conflict. Clearly the safety net is a potential for federal-provincial conflict.

Other areas or things...B.C. has its own listing process. There are species that are on the B.C. list for threatened and endangered that are not on the COSEWIC list, and there are species on the COSEWIC list found in B.C. that are not on the B.C. threatened and endangered list. Although the bill goes to address that potential, I think there could be, without a clear bilateral understanding, conflict there.

• 1020

The last one, and the one we presented this morning—and we have detailed our comments in the brief we've supplied—is the concern about the exemption process. The bill clearly contemplates exemptions for authorities under federal legislation, but it does not allow for an exemption transition provision for authorities granted provincially.

That will be a real problem, not just for the forest industry in British Columbia but for other resource managers across the nation in their provincial areas, because of course most land-use authorities are provincial authorities.

Mr. Peter deMarsh: A quick comment on the possibility of non-monetary methods of compensation. One obvious one is tax credits, though they may be part of an incentive package. I think it's a good illustration of how incentives and compensation are not clear black and white alternatives; they run together.

The other is for a land-based business. It's a provision of alternative blocks of land. Sometimes in provincial expropriation arrangements that sort of thing is provided. Certainly where the issue is maintaining the land base that will allow the business to continue, occasionally that may be possible, and if so, it may be very appropriate.

Those would be two that would come to mind.

Mr. Peter Affleck: If I might, Mr. Mills, on your question about litigation potential related to socio-economic considerations in the bill, it's a significant concern to us that the purposes section, clause 6, does not address that. In relation to the discretion that decision-makers will have in other sections of the bill, such as the discretion for using the federal safety net and the discretion of defining critical habitat, it would be our position that without enabling decision-makers to have that opportunity to consider social and economic values, those kinds of decisions will be very difficult.

If social and economic values were part of the consideration, for example, to not list a species on the legal list that was on the COSEWIC list, my sense is, and I'm not a lawyer, there could be a challenge to that decision because the act does not enable social and economic considerations to be taken.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Reed, Madam Redman, Madam Scherrer, and the chair.

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

I think we have all developed an appreciation for the problem surrounding habitat. I realize, when you're in the industries that you're involved in, habitat involves a piece of land that may shift its dynamic in many cases, and so on.

But we also have to consider air, water, and the food chain—things like that—as well. So, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning when I mentioned that we really don't have a clear definition of habitat in our minds at this point, I think we really don't know what those provinces have considered in terms of their legislation. I think we have yet to establish that.

Mr. deMarsh, you zeroed in on something that has been a particular concern to me over the years, sitting on committees trying to construct legislation that would be positive and forward thinking, and it has to do with the difference in impact on small business versus large business.

You talked about the question of due diligence and the fact that a small woodlot owner, for instance, or a landowner probably could not afford to do due diligence. I have more than every sympathy with that. You really zeroed in on something. We sit around here and construct legislation, and somehow we miss that reality, that businesses that are small—and many large businesses began small. If they are, through legislation, prohibited from beginning and prohibited from growing, then we have not done our duty. We haven't done it.

• 1025

I say this to get it on the record. Whatever we do and whatever kind of legislation we create here, it's got to have full regard for the fact that the small woodlot owner, for instance, must have exactly the same kind of opportunity the larger corporation has. We cannot, through legislation, inhibit that in any way.

I didn't hear in COFI's presentation about due diligence. I wondered if your organization has feelings about due diligence and how significant it is.

Mr. Peter Affleck: We would share Mr. deMarsh's concern, Mr. Reed, that clause 100 only allows a due diligence defence against an action, whether intended or not, that violates SARA. I would link a couple of things together, if that's permissible.

One of the things the AFPA presented was—and it was a very good presentation—on the dynamics of the definition of habitat and how we would define critical habitat. There are a couple things I wouldn't mind putting on record. One is that in all the deliberations up until Bill C-33, in the consultation sessions, etc., and the materials we received from environment staff, the definition of critical habitat focused on habitat necessary for the survival of the species. When Bill C-33 came out, it was quite a surprise to us that the definition for critical habitat had been expanded to habitat necessary for the survival of the species and for the recovery of the species. That very much broadened the landscape to which that may be applied.

If I can give a quick story here about an example in the southeast part of British Columbia, we had an attempt to manage mountain caribou, established with the ministry of environment and ministry of forests in the province, in areas we had defined using the same kind of criteria. It was an area necessary for the survival of the individuals that were there now in these herds, but also an area we anticipated, if we were able to achieve recovery of these herds, would be the habitat area required. We didn't anticipate when that was done that SARA would use the same kind of process to define critical habitat, and then have the provision that you can't destroy critical habitat.

As to Dr. Bonar's comments, we're not clear on how critical habitat gets messages out to individuals. What will that process be? Will it be a list of characteristics? Will it actually be some kind of polygon definition on a forest cover mass, if it is a land-based definition for critical habitat? The concern there is that under clauses 58, 60, and 61 we're in violation of SARA if we destroy. I don't know that the definition of “destroy” is as clear as it needs to be in the act either.

My concern, Mr. Reed, is that we could, very inadvertently, cause destruction of a piece of critical habitat, and then have to go through a process of due diligence to try to defend our actions if pursued that way. I think your comments about the ability of large organizations to do that, as opposed to small organizations, are very apropos.

We have great concerns about clause 100, and we have made some clear recommendations in our submission to you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madam Redman, please.

Mr. Julian Reed: Will we have a second round, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Maybe, if we are fast enough.

Mr. Julian Reed: I have one more question.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions, and I'll be quick.

Mr. McIntyre, in the past your organization has written to the minister suggesting that it would be a good idea to have experts meet and talk about the species at risk that have been identified. Under the proposed legislation, the minister is actually required to convene a round table within two years. I'm wondering if you can just comment on that piece of this current legislation.

• 1030

Mr. Wilf McIntyre: The IWA has been involved all the time with governments and industry in putting forest policies together, and I think we feel we should be part of that policy, representing workers, as things get legislated and put into place. That's why we're saying we should be involved, we should be at the table, along with environmental groups, government, and industry, to be able to develop good environmental practices.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So you would agree that's a good feature?

Mr. Wilf McIntyre: Yes, it is.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

Mr. Bonar, one of the CSA standards for sustainable forest management is conservation of biodiversity, which by definition includes the care that species do not become extinct. I can only assume that steps are being taken to protect critical habitat of species currently. I'm wondering if you could just give us a little enlightenment on exactly what's happening right now with species at risk and their habitat.

Mr. Rick Bonar: The species at risk issue is incorporated into the larger question of biodiversity conservation, so any company that contemplates certification right now has to be able to demonstrate their plan for overall biodiversity conservation. Species at risk is a subcomponent of that.

Typically, companies, as I mentioned in our presentation, make a forecast for the overall changes to the forest and then assess those changes against individual species at risk, if there are any present. But generally, we say, if we are managing to maintain the integrity of forests, in other words, if the activities of humans are capable of maintaining conditions for persistence of the forest, the environment attached to the forest, the air, soil, and water, then we expect the species that are dependent on that habitat will also be sustained. More or less, we're saying if we have forests that are similar to those that are maintained by nature, we should be able to be successful in biodiversity conservation.

What we then do is look at that general strategy, which we call a coarse filter, and say, are there any species at risk in particular that are falling through the cracks of that coarse filter we need to take additional measures for? Caribou are a good example. Then we say, how specifically do our plans for the forest change affect caribou habitat and is there anything we need to fine-tune, at a fine filter level, to sustain that species? We would do that for each species at risk. In fact, our own company has six species, not necessarily listed by COSEWIC, for which we've done an individual assessment in our forest management plan.

Then we have that bigger level of plan, which considers a 180-year forecast of what the forest will look like, how much old growth there will be, where it will be in space and time, whether that will be sufficient, how it compares to what might happen under a natural disturbance regime.

So that's the basic process of planning. Then you replan frequently, monitor, and return to your plan.

Mrs. Karen Redman: How did you arrive at the species you monitored? You said they're not all at risk right now.

Mr. Rick Bonar: No. Individual companies pick species for various reasons. One reason, of course, is that they are at risk or may be at risk. Another reason might be that they have perceived ecological importance disproportionate to their role in the system. A species that is what's called a cornerstone or a keystone species, where various other species are dependent on it, would be of interest to us. Then, finally, there are those species that have economic importance because they are harvested, or because they are in public demand for viewing, or something like that. So there are three general categories, and then we pick and choose, depending on the particular combinations in each area.

Mrs. Karen Redman: These species are broader than furry creatures. You look at plants as well, I'm assuming?

Mr. Rick Bonar: Yes, we look at all species insofar as we have information, and certainly to be consistent with federal and provincial processes. So the new status report on wild species in Canada, for example, is an aggregation of the provincial processes we're plugged into and actually participate in. Some of the monitoring work we do extends to species as well, and we provide that information to the provinces.

• 1035

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer, please.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This legislation in my mind, is subdivided into four main steps, the first being the identifying of a list by scientists. The analysis and identifying of their habitat constitutes the second step. There are then the solution proposals for the protection and recovery, and there is a fourth main step which relates to the compensation and penalties issues.

I understood that each of the groups that came forward this morning seemed to agree that this legislation should allow for socio-economic considerations, which means that it should go a little beyond the scientific part provided for as a first step.

I would like you to give me some elements namely at what time, during those four steps, socio-economic considerations should be taken into account? When identifying the list or when arriving at solutions or only when talking about compensation or penalties?

[English]

Mr. Peter Affleck: I wouldn't mind answering that first, thank you.

When you go through our brief, I think you'll see that there is a necessary narrowing of those socio-economic considerations as you go through the process. I think you're absolute right that in laying out the structure that's intended under SARA—and we fully agree with what is in the bill—scientists should establish independently what species are at risk in Canada. But there is a step between the scientists' list identifying species at risk in Canada and the minister and cabinet deciding which of those would go onto the legal list, and I think at that point in time, a look at socio-economic issues needs to be first broached.

It seems to me necessary that cabinet and the minister understand that putting a species on the legal list then invokes a number of prohibitions, and actions, by the way, that they would have to take. There's a commitment that the necessary recovery plans need to be made, in terms depending upon how the species is listed. It's of interest that there is no opportunity for the minister to extend those time periods. I'm not sure what happens if those time periods are not met.

But at that point in time, when you consider the prohibitions that come along with it, there needs to be some understanding of the socio-economic impacts, and as part of that legal listing process, they would have to do that.

My point in saying that needs to be part of the clause 6 purposes is that there is nothing in the bill right now that enables or allows socio-economic considerations to come into play when those kinds of decisions are made. My sense is that there will be species and are species on the COSEWIC list that government may not want to put on the legal list right away because of socio-economic considerations.

As you go down through that process, your next step is habitat and again the issues around the definition of critical habitat and the prohibitions that come with that, and the safety nets that come with clause 61 with critical habitat provisions and the prohibition against destroying any of that critical habitat.

Again when the critical habitat definition is decided, clearly along with all the good biological evidence and considerations that have to go into that, there must be a narrowing of what the socio-economic impacts of defining that critical habitat are, because of the prohibitions that come with that.

Then you get down to solutions, and again a narrowing and more precision on how socio-economics would come into it—in fact, as Peter deMarsh has said, the fine line between what may be considered an incentive under a stewardship agreement in clause 11 versus what may fall into the compensation issues under clause 64. So again what's needed is a clear understanding of socio-economic impacts there, both in how the stewardship agreement might be set up, but as well, what the content of the stewardship agreement would be.

The last one, of course, is compensation. Our point is, when you get into that, that process needs to have procedural structure, procedural fairness, and indeed be based on fair market value, as Dr. Pearse has recommended.

Mr. Peter deMarsh: Could I add something related to that?

The Chair: Very briefly.

• 1040

Mr. Peter deMarsh: During the process of doing the assessment after a species has been listed, at that point in time, potential solutions will be developed. Each of those will have an element of certainty and an element of risk. That is a good opportunity to compare the potential solutions against the socio-economic considerations.

Society is going to have to make decisions—scientists can't help here—as to how much risk they're willing to accept regarding a potential recovery plan, from a very secure recovery to a maybe recovery but still potentially recovered, against those socio-economic considerations. It will be different for each species.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer, just a short question, please.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: In the Alberta presentation, it says, in the recommendations:

Federal authority must be delegated to the province through agreements that allow the provinces to approve forest management plans that are in compliance with a recovery plan.

Do you know whether all the provinces now have forest management plans?

[English]

Mr. Bob Demulder: I don't know. My understanding is that most do, but I can't say I'm an expert on the laws across the country. I'm pretty sure B.C. operates the same way, but I'm not sure where you're at in eastern Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter deMarsh: The question is not whether it is there; it is rather a matter of quality. There is certainly a great difference in the quality of the plans which are in place in various provinces. But in principle, yes, all the provinces should have some...

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: They should have some.

Mr. Peter deMarsh: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Scherrer.

[English]

We now have Mr. Knutson, followed by the chair.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Mauch, you mentioned that you were not confident that the Government of Canada had the constitutional power to bring in this piece of legislation, and then you went on to say that you didn't think we should have a safety net provision until....

I wonder if we could deal with both issues but start with the constitutional issue. Can you give me your argument as to why you think we're limited?

Ms. Anne Mauch: I can't say myself that I think you're limited. I just understand that there seems to be considerable expression that this may be so. I don't feel that I personally have the ability to make that judgment. Our concern is that this—

Mr. Gar Knutson: You mention considerable concern.

Ms. Anne Mauch: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is there some evidence of that?

Ms. Anne Mauch: Well, the fact that species are primarily a provincial and territorial responsibility suggests that in the sharing of those things, they will be doing the protection of species, and that's certainly how we've been operating as a country up until now. So I think—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Where is the evidence of considerable concern? You said there's considerable concern about the government overstepping its authority.

Ms. Anne Mauch: I've heard it in other testimony before this committee. Those are the concerns I've heard from other testimony.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay, and on your point that we shouldn't have a safety net provision—

Ms. Anne Mauch: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: —that we should come back to it basically if the provinces don't do their job, by that point, the animals are extinct.

Ms. Anne Mauch: No, I don't think so. When I spoke about that, I said I think what is happening now is working. I believe the accord is working.

There was a gap analysis done, and we see that there are relatively few gaps between what is being proposed and what provinces are doing, and we see progress being made.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we wait until a species is extinct. I think we have evidence in each province—I'll speak mostly to B.C.—of many activities that are being done, both federally and provincially, but also by individual companies on a voluntary basis, to protect species. My comment summary was that I think we should continue to promote and support that rather than put up something that may cause more potential problems.

If I look at B.C., I see companies like TimberWest providing $0.5 million to the marmot recovery. I see much smaller companies, on a voluntary basis, undertaking inventories and habitat studies and supporting research, both financially and in other ways, and these are the ways that we would like to continue to rely on. When I suggested that if it's not working...I don't think it takes until a species is extinct to judge that it's not working. If we don't see gaps being filled, if we don't see that progress being made, then we're suggesting that we should revisit it.

• 1045

Mr. Gar Knutson: What does “revisited” mean? Pass legislation?

Ms. Anne Mauch: Yes, if that's necessary.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's a slow, fairly cumbersome process. We've seen it with this law.

Ms. Anne Mauch: Well, I certainly wouldn't want to see it take as long as it has taken to get to this stage. I appreciate those concerns, but we feel there would be more risk to the government to risk those jurisdictional concerns than to continue to.... There are many aspects of a bill that promote partnership and encourage and develop that partnership.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't know if I have much time remaining, but maybe to change the subject, if you can take us through what B.C. did with the white black bear that got a fair bit of publicity a few weeks ago.... Beyond what was in the newspaper, could you tell us what happened, how it might affect your industry, whether that was a positive thing?

Ms. Anne Mauch: You mean the agreement on the coast?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right.

Ms. Anne Mauch: I don't have a lot of details on that. The area on the central coast is one where there has been a land-use plan process in place for quite some time—a number of years—and in the B.C. process groups are brought together and, basically in a round-table process, decide land-use allocation. The B.C. central coast is one where there are a lot of different interests and a lot of different opportunities, including, of course, the great natural beauty and other things.

That process progressed most recently with a number of groups—companies and environmental groups—setting up a sort of parallel process to work out some ways that they thought they could both achieve what they wanted, which was both conservation and the ability for companies to continue on. Just recently it was announced that they had reached an agreement where there are some areas that will be protected, some quite significant areas, and of course within that area is what's called a Kermode bear, which I don't believe is a listed species.

Peter, do you know?

Mr. Peter deMarsh: I don't think so.

Ms. Anne Mauch: It is particularly found in that area and has a white coat as opposed to a black coat.

So that process is typical in some ways of many land-use processes that have gone on in B.C., atypical perhaps in the fact that there was some parallel process, a separate process, that went on at the same time as the land-use process and then came back together again. Is it good or bad? I think it has good features to it for people and it has features that people, as were mentioned, are still struggling with—how to address the dislocations and things like that that will impact from that. Those things are of great difficulty for people to deal with. There are impacts on everyone.

What I think is important is that in B.C. we have this land-use process, and in this particular case it took some time to get there, but we did achieve some kind of a decision.

Mr. Gar Knutson: One last point. You could just tell Ron McDonald that he's missed in Parliament.

Ms. Anne Mauch: Well, he would have liked to have been here, but unfortunately it's a very busy time in British Columbia, so he wasn't able to be here. I will certainly pass on your message to him. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.

Let me say that your four briefs are, in good part, very helpful and we will take them into account quite closely.

Let me also tell you where we come from as parliamentarians. If we have to look back perhaps 100 years ago and ask ourselves what was the picture at the time, what was possibly the number of endangered species then, and ask ourselves also what might be the picture 100 years from now, with that kind of perspective.... For instance, if you go up the Ottawa Valley, except for the Gatineau Park, you hardly find a white pine any longer. It is a species that provided jobs. It is a species that opened sawmills. Today, if you go up to the Gatineau Valley, many sawmills are closed and the loggers are a rarity. The white pine used to provide phenomenal employment.

• 1050

Without going back 100 years to the white pine here, let us go back only 10 years to the cod and the announcement in 1992 when the moratorium was imposed. But for socio-economic considerations that moratorium was not imposed and was postponed for years and years. Remember that. The cod was being harvested at a level of 650,000 tonnes a year in the seventies, at a level of 200,000 tonnes a year in the eighties, and then it came down drastically to 40,000 in 1990. In 1991 and in 1992 Crosbie had to invoke the moratorium, because until then, for socio-economic reasons, he was told he shouldn't call the moratorium.

Then, of course, going back to Mr. McIntyre's very helpful suggestions here at the end of his brief on page 4, programs were instituted, such as the famous TAG program—$1.9 billion has been invested to keep those communities alive.

Incidentally, Mr. McIntyre, whoever from your research branch wrote the passage on the precautionary principle, you had better send him or her back to school because it is all wrong.

As Mr. McIntyre says in his report, you pay me now or you pay me later. I would want to caution you, because this term “socio-economic consideration” has been raised many times this morning, it could lead us in the wrong direction. It could lead us to politically postpone necessary decisions until it is very late, if not too late, as we did with cod. Those communities are still not using that resource.

Actually, three months ago the fishery was reopened for 7,000 tonnes a year. Imagine. In the seventies we were at 600,000 tonnes.

We are the problem, of course. We are facing ourselves in all of this.

I appreciate very much what Mr. deMarsh said in his presentation this morning. As in the case of Dr. Pearse, we are also—and here is that question, where do we draw the line between voluntary action and the need for some compensation without blunting the voluntary spirit, the initiative that would take place in any case? We don't know where to draw that line exactly. But it is a very important question that you raised.

I find very helpful the slide that showed stable and mobile habitat. It's very helpful. It brings to mind migratory birds. There's a lot of mobile habitat there.

I'm warning you, be careful with this concept of socio-economic considerations because it can lead to the wrong conclusion. For socio-economic considerations you may exploit the resource until the limit and then perhaps not be able to bring it back to rehabilitate it, because you want to keep alive those economic activities. You want to have a kind of management that will keep the loggers employed in the next 100 years, whose unemployment is mostly caused by technological advancement, by the way. You know that, Mr. McIntyre, as well as I do. Nothing in this proposed Bill C-5 will endanger the livelihood of loggers as technological advancement does every day and every hour as we talk about things here.

So what am I trying to say here? I don't know—

Mr. Julian Reed: We all have differences of opinion.

The Chair: —but perhaps I should ask a question and then ask for a second round.

The question is whether—perhaps particularly you, Mr. Demulder—you think too much discretionary language in the bill might make it difficult for the forestry operators to know exactly where they stand with regard to law enforcement. Would you perhaps prefer to see more mandatory language to create more certainty and consistency?

• 1055

What is your thinking on these two types of approaches in the legislation?

Mr. Bob Demulder: Actually I wasn't thinking that you should make the federal legislation more mandatory.

We understand the provincial approval processes; we understand those standards. The process to consider is, through organizations like the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, the ministers of the environment, that this understanding of what we have provincially then be understood through acts like SARA. Then the SARA can be compatible with the provincial approval processes and standards.

That's more where I'm going. I don't think this act needs to get to that level. Prescriptive approaches are at best rather difficult anyway.

The Chair: That's all right. Keep in mind that our information suggests that the implementation of provincial legislation is not one to write home about: it is very weak.

Mr. Bob Demulder: Versus the federal....

The Chair: Well, there is no federal legislation yet.

But in provinces where there is legislation, the list receiving final approval actually represents anywhere between 15% and 30% of the original list proposed by the scientific community. There is a wide gap between the scientific recommendations and the political implementation, which also may explain the fact that yesterday none of the witnesses knew of provincial habitat mandatory protection, because probably there is very little action at the provincial level—despite the fact that legislation exists already.

Mr. Rick Bonar: In Alberta, speaking from experience on the Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee over the last couple of years, the committee's scientific subcommittee has made recommendations to the minister, and the minister has followed through with a designation for every single one of the species recommended by the scientists and is now in the process of working on the recovery plan process.

The Chair: We would be very grateful to have documentation of this information, if you can provide it.

Mr. Rick Bonar: We could provide you with the first report of the Endangered Species Conservation Committee.

The Chair: Please do.

Second round then, Mr. Mills and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Bob Mills: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to make a statement, too, because I've sat and listened to the statements. I will try to be as diplomatic as I can.

First of all, I do think you need to look at what the Alberta endangered species group has done. I have met with environmentalists, with scientists, with industry, and all of them are extremely happy with how the endangered species act is being implemented, how it's working, how it's cooperative. Landowners are happy—everyone is happy. What we really have is a difference of philosophy.

I don't want to sound like Mr. Bigras and say that western alienation is a term we don't understand. But in the west we believe in less government, more cooperation, more implementation, so the jobs will be there 100 years from now, 200 years from now. People are proud of making this happen. We don't need government to make it happen; we'll make it happen ourselves.

It's a philosophical difference we're talking about here, a very deep philosophical gap I can certainly see even in your comments, Mr. Chairman, and in the presentations we've seen.

You simply don't understand that we want to make it happen—we want to save endangered species in the best way possible, through cooperation, consultation, compensation where necessary. And everyone will make it happen, and we'll save species. The big hand of government coming down will only further endanger the endangered species. That's the message we've got to get across. Maybe people somewhere else in Canada need the big hand of government, but we don't.

• 1100

I would like to bring forward some Alberta government officials and some environmentalists. I would like you to come to Alberta and talk to some landowners and hear what they have to say. I could show you plot after plot of endangered species being protected. With the heavy hand of government, they might not be protected after we do that.

That's my comment on what I have just witnessed. That's now on the record.

Mr. Reed, I know you agree with some of those things.

Anyway, I had to say that. I don't know if anybody wants to comment. But those are my comments.

Mr. Peter Affleck: I would appreciate an opportunity to give the B.C. perspective on that. Very much like the Alberta process, in B.C. we have regulation around endangered species. It's relatively new, you're correct there, but it is in place. There are prohibitions in our Wildlife Act related to our list of threatened and endangered species.

As Anne alluded to in her response to Mr. Knutson's questions on the central coast issue, there are land-use planning processes throughout the province that are cooperatively structured. They're not legislated. It's not statutes that create these processes. They come about through cooperation.

An awful lot of work has gone on. I can give you a list of examples. For example, the Vancouver Island marmot has a very clear recovery plan that is part of a land-use planning process. The spotted owl is part of a land-use planning process, and there's a recovery plan for that. There are literally millions of dollars worth of volunteer time and effort and funds going into these processes. The one I mentioned earlier in response to a question is the mountain caribou in the southeast part of the province. The Kermode bear, though not listed, is another example of those kinds of processes that are going on in the province.

There may not be a legislative structure you can use to quantify what's going on, but I think you would be remiss if you didn't look at the complete package.

I wouldn't mind taking the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to respond to your comments. I don't disagree with your concerns about the swing in the balance of values across this nation. Our point is that you don't focus only on social and economic values. But, with respect, I think it's also a mistake to focus only on the environmental values. Our submission is about the balance of values that all Canadians want and need.

Mr. Bob Demulder: That's where you guys as elected officials have to make the tough decisions. I hate to say it, but the buck stops there.

I agree with you that there's the potential for it to go too far, and it obviously did in the cod fishery.

I can throw it back to you and say, try not to put yourself in the position of wanting to get elected again because you might have to make a decision that's unpopular.

Mr. Peter deMarsh: If I could add a word, I didn't perceive in either of your comments any fundamental disagreement.

There are situations where urgent action is needed. Coming from New Brunswick, the cod fishery is a clear example of a massive failure that's going to affect future generations, maybe even permanently, as current scientists seem to be indicating.

On the other hand, your philosophy is one we can endorse wholeheartedly. The minister has said that the legislation will not succeed if the government fails to establish a partnership with landowners, that is, farmers, ranchers, and woodlot owners.

So the issue is, how do you do that? You don't do it with residual, coercive powers that will threaten to put people out of business waiting in the background if people don't show enough willingness to cooperate upfront.

I made the statement that the success of voluntary action will be determined to a considerable degree by the clear recognition by Canadian society that we will compensate landowners for their losses. It's not zero-sum; it's plus-plus. That's our contention. Woodlot owners will react with greater voluntary action if we perceive the compensation measures to be fair and reasonable.

• 1105

I was thinking earlier, how do I prove that to you, since I acknowledge if it were a different issue, a different interest group, and I, as a taxpayer, were observing this, I'd probably agree with the original position of the government that, yes, we don't want to throw money away here if we can avoid it?

There are two ways to prove it, I would offer. One is to look at the history of land-use regulation across the country. We have some textbook examples, right from my own home province, of regulation that was badly designed without compensation that led landowners to do exactly the opposite of what was desired. The example I'm referring to in particular is the Clean Water Act of about 10 years ago, which is a textbook case of how not to get your objectives achieved by failing to cooperate with landowners, and in particular failing to recognize the financial implication of your imposed regulation on them.

The other way to do it would be to consider some sort of trial project in several locations, perhaps with several mixes of incentives and compensation, to see how in fact we will work with each and which will be most effective.

Please, believe me, and, please, I urge you to get the message across to the minister and the department that it's not a zero-sum game, this compensation versus incentives. They have to mesh. The more generous Canadian society is prepared to be in building this partnership, the more effective will be our response. The more goodwill that's there as a reservoir, as a latent contribution to this project, the more that goodwill will be put into effect.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Reed, the last question.

Mr. Julian Reed: You have to appreciate Mr. Mills' western chauvinism. It would appear that the only over-exploitation that has taken place has been in the east, in eastern Canada. I should point out that the white pine is recovering, Mr. Chairman, and some of it's taking place on my farm, I'm proud to say.

I suppose that, hopefully, the outcome of this legislation will be somewhere between Mr. Mills' view and the carrot and stick sort of thing. I would suggest to you that whatever we do, we want to promote and elicit the spirit of cooperation and sensitivity among all Canadians.

There's a problem we face in this country, and this is that it is highly urbanized. Urban Canada looks on endangered species as something out there; their attitude is this is not our thing but you have to protect them. What is not fully realized is that the higher percentage of endangered species is in the water that's being contaminated by urban Canada, namely Lake Ontario, and so on. Every time a person in the city flushes a toilet, they're contributing to it. I don't know whether this legislation truly addresses this as well as it should—maybe it doesn't—but whatever we come up with, we want, in the end result, to raise the consciousness of every citizen.

We're all part of nature, we're all mixed up in this together, and we don't have the moral right or the economic right to engage in over-exploitation and destruction. We did it in the past because of lack of knowledge, and we did it in Europe because of lack of knowledge until it all folded in on us.

I want to say how much I appreciate the fact that you've been here today and presented these positions to us. I, for one, have taken them to heart.

• 1110

Mr. Bob Mills: I agree with what Julian said.

Mr. Rick Bonar: I think the point we'd like to make is that we're already on this road, and we're supportive of what both of you have said. We want to do the right thing. What we would like is for SARA to enable us, to support us, and not get in the way, if you will, of the things we are doing that are positive. Yet we recognize that where situations can't be worked out there needs to be recognition that this has to be addressed.

I have one other comment. There's a difference between exploitation and over-exploitation and extirpation and extinction. Your issue, Mr. Caccia, with respect, about the cod is an issue of over-exploitation, certainly, but it's not an issue of extinction.

SARA is focused on extinction, and we need to take extraordinary measures on this side that are more heroic I think than what needs to be addressed on the issue of over-exploitation.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

If not, on behalf of the committee let me thank you very much for your input, for your advice, for your good answers and comments, and the briefs, of course.

Perhaps, as you go home, keep in mind that what we are all engaged in here is a valiant effort to reverse a trend. Endangered species 100 years ago may have been a very negligible number. Today the number is 382 and growing, on the upswing. We would like to of course as a society, as a nation, reverse that trend, and that's what this piece of legislation is wrestling with, how to do it.

Thank you.