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 31, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to you all. Bienvenue et bonjour.

We have two items of business. One has to do with a paper, which I discovered last night, on the constitutional powers of the federal side when it comes to federal-provincial relations. It was prepared for the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association some years ago. It was very helpful at the time when this committee was discussing the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment proposals. I'm going back now to December 1994.

• 0910

The paper contains a number of points that have been raised and discussed in recent weeks in this committee, providing a federal perspective, of course. I would be inclined to think that it could be useful to members of the committee in our future deliberations. So I'm giving a copy to our clerk and asking him if he would be so kind as to make sure that every member of the committee, present or not present, receives a copy, with an explanation for those who were not present this morning as to why it is being distributed.

It is, as I said, a paper strong on the federal side. It will not make everybody happy, but nevertheless it is a document that has been produced for parliamentarians, and it might be put again to good use.

Secondly, Madam Redman would like to make an intervention before we proceed.

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

This is further to a motion that this committee voted on—I believe it was tabled on Tuesday and actually voted on yesterday—concerning the legal opinion by the Department of Justice to the Department of the Environment. It's asking for the legal advice to be tabled with the committee.

On several previous occasions, this committee has discussed many issues that have to do with both the constitutionality of the basis of species at risk and divergent opinions. Mr. Gibson talked about the use of the criminal law power for the safety nets, and we had heard different opinions on whether the safety net, or mens rea, or criminal law could be used.

I'm thinking that both the constitutionality as well as the safety net provision, and those differing opinions, could be discussed with the Department of Justice. My understanding is that they have agreed to come. I feel that it's very productive for this committee to actually hear people from the Department of Justice.

I don't know if a formal motion is necessary because we've talked about this over time, or if we could just reach consensus. It's a feeling of the Department of the Environment that it would be a productive discussion if representatives of the Department of Justice were to come, and I would like to hear the committee's view on that.

The Chair: Well, this could lead to a fairly lengthy discussion, I'm afraid. Keep in mind that the motion yesterday was proposed and passed because of dissatisfaction with the discussions that had taken place in March with the Department of Justice. That led to the proposition being made and to the motion being adopted. I don't think this would be the time to open the floor to that and to keep witnesses waiting for some time.

I would suggest instead that you make informal consultations and conversations with members of the committee to see whether we should go into this matter—perhaps next Tuesday in a special meeting, or in a meeting at the beginning of or preceding the round table. In that case, we would advance that meeting by half an hour as a result of your consultation, if you find that members of the committee are inclined to pursue that road with the Department of Justice.

At this stage, the decision of the committee as of yesterday is still very fresh. It seems to me that it would not be the right moment to reopen the discussions, which, as I said, may take place if necessary, but only after individual consultations between you and the members of the committee.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you for greater clarity. If I do the consultation, at what point would we then discuss as a committee if we're going to ask the Department of Justice to appear?

• 0915

The Chair: If you find a propensity on the part of committee members to have that kind of approach, as I said, we could have a half-hour discussion as a result of your findings half an hour before the next round table on Tuesday. That's provided you find consensus among the committee members. This is why I'm encouraging you to engage in this type of sounding in order to find out what is the propensity of the committee members.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I agree with Mrs. Redman. I certainly would like to hear from the justice department. I have a lot of questions about mens rea and how that works. I'm no lawyer. I'd like to hear from professionals on that issue.

The Chair: Mens rea is in a category by itself.

The motion that was passed yesterday had in mind mainly to identify, in the advice given by the Department of Justice to the Department of the Environment, the aspect that relates to the constitutional powers given to the federal level of government.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I could, Mr. Chair, just for greater clarity, it would be both of these issues. I mentioned that in the preamble, that the Department of Justice, if they're here, could talk about many issues. It's not just to deal with the motion yesterday. I thought we had consensus at this committee that it was a desirable thing to have the Department of Justice appear.

The Chair: As I said, the previous discussions with the Department of Justice in March, as I recall them, did not produce much light. Nevertheless, if that is the wish of the committee, we can do that. But I would first encourage you to hold individual discussions, provided that is not interpreted as an alternative to the motion that was passed yesterday, because those are two separate items.

We are now engaging in a discussion, and it's—

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe you've made your ruling. Perhaps we should raise the matter again one half hour before Tuesday's roundtable discussions. And since we have invited guests, I think the meeting should be called to order immediately.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): If I could just weigh in with one final point, I don't think the motion and the attendance at committee of the Department of Justice are mutually exclusive. Why can we not have both the response we've requested as a committee and have the Department of Justice be available, as they should be to every committee that is looking at a bill? They're not mutually exclusive.

The Chair: All right.

We'll now proceed with our witnesses, and we apologize for the delay. We welcome all of you, starting with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Andy Teal and Nick Schultz; the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, Bonnie Stowkowy; TransCanada Pipelines, Brian McConaghy and Elizabeth Swanson; the Fraser Institute, Laura Jones; and the Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations, the president, Mr. Robert Walsh. We welcome you all.

We would be grateful if you could make brief presentations so as to permit a good round of questions, which usually brings out the most interesting information and views.

I presume Mr. Teal would like to be first.

Mr. Andy Teal (Member, Environmental, Health and Safety Executive Policy Group, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers): Certainly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, hon. members. It's a pleasure to have this opportunity to address the standing committee on this important government initiative. We thank you for that invitation.

I'm Andy Teal, environmental manager for Imperial Oil Resources. With me is Nick Schultz of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. I am a member of CAPP's Environmental, Health and Safety Executive Policy Group and the issue manager for initiatives regarding endangered species.

CAPP represents 150 companies whose activities focus on the exploration, development, and production of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, synthetic crude oil, bitumen, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce approximately 95% of Canada's natural gas and crude oil. CAPP has also 120 associate members who provide the broad range of services that complete the infrastructure of this country's upstream crude oil and natural gas industry.

• 0920

We provided the standing committee in March with three documents setting out in detail CAPP's response to Bill C-5. These documents were: the response of CAPP to Bill C-5; the response of CAPP to the report by Dr. Pearse; and the clause-by-clause comments, which were supplemental to our submission on Bill C-5. I'm not going to repeat all of what we said in these documents. We would, of course, be happy to respond to any questions related to these documents.

Today I want to hit the main points—firstly, support for the protection of species at risk. Mr. Chairman and hon. members, CAPP fully supports the objective of ensuring adequate protection for threatened and endangered species in Canada. CAPP has consistently supported this objective. We participated in and supported the consensus of the Endangered Species Task Force reporting to the federal Minister of Environment in 1996. We appeared before this standing committee in January 1997 to address Bill C-65, and we responded to Bill C-33. We are participants in the Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee reporting to Alberta's Minister of Environment.

The commitment of CAPP and its member companies to preserving Canada's wilderness diversity is demonstrated by action. We have a long and consistent track record of support for and participation in numerous programs and collaborative efforts aimed at minimizing potentially undesirable impact on the environment of oil and gas development. The record of the petroleum industry is one of continuous learning and continuous improvement of practices to minimize potential environmental impacts.

I will mention a few: comprehensive planning strategies in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan; multi-stakeholder workshops and studies in British Columbia and Alberta; the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project; the woodland caribou projects; the Cumulative Environmental Management Association of Northeast Alberta; and the Regulatory Advisory Committee for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are also many cases where species and their habitat have been studied and protection programs established. I won't go through all of those specifics at this point in time.

The Chair: We would prefer you to focus on Bill C-5.

Mr. Andy Teal: We want to focus on the key principles. CAPP supports coordinated government and public action to protect species at risk. CAPP is committed to working with all stakeholders and all levels of government to develop guidelines for operations that may impact species at risk in their habitat.

CAPP's approach is based on the following principles: one, a cooperative, collaborative approach based on conservation programs with supportive regulations; two, the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada is to be honoured and implemented and provincial jurisdictions to be respected; three, attainment of objectives through recovery planning, not through sanctions. Existing planning and regulatory approval processes should be utilized. Number four is no criminal sanctions except for actions taken with wilful intent to kill or harm species at risk.

The Chair: I appreciate the fact that you want to tell us what are CAPP's principles, but what we want to know are your views on the bill. Could you please tackle that angle? We have many witnesses and only two hours.

Mr. Andy Teal: Okay. I'll move through it quickly, then. You have our submission, anyway. You have the core principles and what guides us as far as our response to the species at risk issue is concerned.

Let me speak, then, to the key components of Bill C-5. Some of the major components of the bill are positive and sound. These are among the central components of the bill and should form the core of a workable framework for the protection of species at risk. The major positives, as we see them, are as follows: key decisions, listing and prescription of critical habitat, are science-based public policy decisions, and critical habitat protection is based on the multi-stakeholder recovery strategy and action planning process; the recovery strategy and action plan model is fundamentally sound, although CAPP does have some suggestions for improvement; private civil action has been removed, although CAPP has some serious concerns about the criminal aspects of the bill; and socio-economic considerations, as well as the need for compensation, are recognized.

CAPP recognizes and acknowledges the careful thought that has gone into the development of these components of the bill, and this should not be lost in the legislative review process. These components should become building blocks for the revisions to the bill.

• 0925

Other major components of Bill C-5 are seriously flawed. The major positive features of the bill are outweighed by flawed and ill-advised approaches to major issues. Number one: Measures that do not respect the national accord and that are counterproductive to the cooperation and collaboration, and inappropriately intrude into provincial jurisdiction.

The second—and a key point—is the criminal prosecution of inadvertent actions. The third is a lack of clarity pertaining to the application of compensation, including resource development. Fourth, there is an unworkable transition from the present into the new SARA framework. Fifth, there is inadequate and unworkable integration with regulatory processes. And finally, there are too many opportunities for judicial intervention.

I will now turn our presentation over to Nick Schultz to address some of the specifics of those recommendations.

Mr. Nick Schultz (Vice-President, Regulatory and Transportation Policy and General Counsel, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief because I realize that you have questions you would wish to ask.

Let me highlight a few of the major areas where we would propose change. We provided a more detailed brief to the committee previously, and we trust you will take that into consideration.

One of our major concerns is the mechanism in this legislation that allows the federal government to impose its regulatory preferences on the provinces. We believe this should be removed. That would involve deleting clause 61 in its entirety and amending some additional clauses.

We share the concerns of many others that any criminal prosecution under this legislation should be based on fault. In our perception what is before this committee now is regulatory law masquerading as criminal law without all of the due process that comes with the regulatory process. It's our submission that this must be changed, and we have pointed out the various sections where that should be done. We have made a number of other specific suggestions with respect to the heavy-handed approach to enforcement in clauses 105 and 108.

We are encouraged by the recognition for compensation, but we find the standard is vague and fails to address the problem of jurisdictional overlap and provides inadequate comfort to those industries engaged in resource extraction or resource development. We have proposed that “extraordinary impact” be defined more clearly in the manner that is set out in our brief and that the issue of federal-provincial overlap needs to be addressed explicitly.

With respect to the report of Dr. Pearse, we find no comfort whatsoever. We find it confusing. We find in large part it is legalistic and fails to come to grips with the concerns of our industry. In addition, we believe Dr. Pearse—with all due respect—has the issue of incentives exactly the wrong way around. If adequate compensation is provided as the last resort in the bill, it will ensure that governments, in implementing this legislation, do sit down with stakeholders at the front end and do the planning that the bill proposes. As Mr. Teal mentioned, we are strongly supportive of the planning model in the act, and we believe that through appropriate planning, through the use of the various mechanisms that are there at the front end, compensation should be the last resort, but not in the manner proposed by Dr. Pearse.

With respect to the transitional measures in the bill, there is a huge amount of work that's going to be imposed on somebody to implement recovery strategies and action plans for the many species that are listed in the appendices. The timeframe set out in the act is entirely unrealistic. The comfort and protection that is given to existing operations is negligible to non-existent. This must be addressed if this act is to be implemented in its transitional phase in a reasonable and workable manner and in a manner that respects the ability of people to make a livelihood, while also balancing that with the need to protect endangered species.

• 0930

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the integration of this legislation with the existing regulatory process needs to be strengthened. We have many rigorous processes in this country, particularly with respect to our industry, which is regulated from cradle to grave by a host of regulations that would fill half of this room, with specialized agencies that do that. It is possible to integrate the objectives of this legislation into those processes and ensure that, when somebody has gone through extensive regulatory processes, and conditions have been imposed on their activities, compliance with those conditions should constitute compliance with this and all other relevant legislation. That is lacking. What we have instead is an additional layer of regulatory jurisdiction and the uncertainty of a heavy-handed approach to criminal enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, we support the protection of endangered species. We support the planning model, a core piece of this legislation, but as drafted, we believe the other heavy-handed features of this bill will create an unworkable balance between the pursuit of human livelihood and the protection of the environment.

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shultz, and Mr. Teal as well.

Ms. Stowkowy, would you like to proceed.

Ms. Bonnie Stowkowy (Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Policy, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. My name is Bonnie Stowkowy. I'm the vice-president of environment and regulatory policy at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. With me at the table today is Ms. Elizabeth Swanson, the senior legal counsel, health, safety and environmental operations and engineering law with one of our member companies, TransCanada Pipelines. Mr. Brian McConaghy, vice-president of health safety and environment, is also here today should the need arise for him to answer questions.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, or in short form CEPA—not to be confused with the act with the same acronym—is the voice of Canada's major crude oil and natural gas transmission pipeline companies. Our members transport most of Canada's oil and gas production to domestic and export markets. We are a fairly young association and, as such, we may be new to you. Our written submission contains a significant amount of information on the pipeline industry, our practices, and economic contribution.

CEPA is dedicated to ensuring a strong and viable transmission pipeline industry in a manner that emphasizes cost competitiveness, public safety and pipeline integrity, and social and environmental stewardship.

In this country 700,000 kilometres of pipeline travel underground to connect the remote supply basins to consumers, refineries, and export markets. Of these about 100,000 kilometres comprise the large transmission pipelines. We are an invisible and vital link in the energy chain. We provide direct employment to over 8,000 people. In the year 2000, we paid in excess of $320 million in property taxes to the municipalities we operate in. As well, we carried the exports of natural gas and crude oil that contributed $27 billion to Canada's merchandise trade balance of $54 billion in the year 2000.

In our view, species at risk legislation must satisfy the criteria of certainty, necessity, feasibility, and fairness. We believe Bill C-5 generally satisfies these objectives and reflects improvements over past initiatives. The current bill is part of the three-part strategy to protect species at risk, including the National Accord for Protection of Species at Risk and stewardship programs.

This approach is consistent with our association's belief that legislation that enables cooperation and conservation is much more effective than command and control policies. This belief is supported by the actions of our member companies.

We are a participant in the biodiversity stewardship in the resource industry initiative, whose focus is to strengthen and extend partnerships among resource industries, conservation groups, first nations, communities, and public agencies. The emphasis is to develop voluntary initiatives that prevent harm to species in the critical habitats, where people from widely different backgrounds could work together openly and constructively towards win-win stewardship opportunities.

Our members partner with conservation and wildlife groups to contribute to habitat protection, mitigation, and restoration, including development of voluntary stewardship programs for burrowing owls, the woodland caribou program, piping plovers, and rare plant rescue programs.

There are many examples of where the transmission pipeline industry is an active partner with other groups, and these activities, I should point out, were well under way prior to the stewardship program incentives announced by the federal minister in 2000.

With respect to the specifics of Bill C-5, our first comment relates to consideration of species at risk and ongoing pipeline operations. The pipeline industry is regulated to ensure that operations remain safe for our workers and for the public who live and work near our pipeline facilities. Pipelines that cross provincial boundaries or the international border are regulated by the National Energy Board under the National Energy Board Act. Provincially operated pipelines fall under the jurisdiction of other similar regulatory agencies.

• 0935

Clause 83 of the bill lists activities that are exempt from provisions of the proposed species at risk legislation due to public safety only if these activities are authorized by an act of Parliament. Public and employee safety is paramount for our industry. Our safety record can be attributed to our pipeline operating and maintenance practices.

Although these activities are carried out under the auspices of the National Energy Board for federally regulated pipelines, they may not require the issuance of a formal approval. As well, there are instances where federally regulated and provincially regulated pipelines may be subject to the proposed Species at Risk Act. In the event of an emergency affecting public safety, one pipeline could be exempt from the provisions of the act, and the other not.

We recommend, therefore, that clause 83 be amended and the reference to acts of Parliament be removed.

Our second comment relates to clause 40 of the bill where it states:

the competent minister must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife species is technically and biologically feasible.

We propose the addition of “economic feasibility” to this determination. I'd like to stress that we are not trying to equate corporate profit with the continued life of a species, but rather we are working towards a cooperative, proactive approach that would improve the chances of success of any recovery plan.

The cost and impact of protective measures must be identified and equitably shared amongst society, which, after all, receives the benefit of the protection of the species at risk.

Our final comment relates to clause 100 of the bill, which states, “Due diligence is a defence in a prosecution for an offence.”

We require guidance on the meaning and scope of reasonable care in this context, either in the legislation or in further regulations, guidelines, or policy statements.

In the pipeline industry, we attempt to return the pipeline rights of way to as close to a natural state as possible. In many cases, the mature land becomes an environmentally friendly habitat for wildlife. Should there be an emergency and a need to disrupt this land in order to protect the public and the environment, there may be an inadvertent violation of the legislation.

If reasonable care is not allowed as a defence, then there may be an incentive for pipeline companies to manicure the right of way so as not to attract wildlife to the property.

We're also recommending changes to clarify several other sections of the bill as contained in our written submission. For your reference, these are clauses 64, 74, and 77. I will not reiterate the comments we've provided you to date.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We are available to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Swanson, would you like to go next?

Ms. Elizabeth Swanson (Senior Counsel, Health, Safety and Environmental Operations and Engineering Law, TransCanada Pipelines): I've nothing to add at this time, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to assist if there are any questions.

The Chair: Great words of wisdom. Thank you.

Ms. Jones.

Ms. Laura Jones (Director, Environmental Studies, Fraser Institute): Thank you for inviting me to testify here today.

Let me begin by stating, as many of the others have stated already, that I agree with the intent of Bill C-5. Canadians care deeply about wildlife, and finding ways to prevent wildlife extinctions and provide for recovery mechanisms is of the utmost importance.

In my written submission I have provided some background information. I've also provided some specific suggestions for improving Bill C-5. I'm going to focus my remarks on those specific suggestions.

First, I believe we need to refine the definition of species used in Bill C-5. The definition used in the bill characterizes wildlife as:

a species, subspecies or biologically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and

is native to Canada; or

has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

This definition is too subjective. A narrower definition of species is the group that can breed and produce fertile offspring. This is the definition I believe should be used if we are not to repeat the mistakes of the United States in this regard, where commentators complain there that the ranks of the federal endangered species program continue to swell with slight variations of otherwise abundant species, well beyond the ability of any agency to effectively manage them.

• 0940

Those who would invoke the act for other than its ostensible purpose are afforded a convenient tool in that the subjectivity of determining subspecies and distinct populations allows one to find some plant or animal with which to oppose virtually anything. This type of abuse will certainly hurt true conservation. As the public becomes more skeptical about the crisis species of the day, no conservation program will succeed without the support of the public.

Second, I believe there should be full compensation for any losses people incur as a result of the Species at Risk Act. Currently clause 64 states:

The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of

(a) section 58, 60, or 61; or

If the goal of the bill, to prevent extirpations and extinctions and to provide for recovery, is to be achieved, this revision must be changed. Any economic impacts must be compensated. The first lesson you learn in a basic economics course is that incentives matter to people. Without full compensation provisions, this bill will create the same perverse incentives that hamper the effectiveness of the U.S. endangered species legislation. Some people will be put in the untenable position of deciding whether to make their property unattractive to wildlife or risk having their property values fall.

Since we know that most Canadians care deeply about wildlife and are proud of our natural heritage, this would be a terrible choice to force them to make. It would be avoided if full compensation was guaranteed.

We can look at compensation in another way. All, or at least most Canadians, want to protect wildlife. With full compensation all Canadians bear the cost of species protection. Without it some Canadians bear the full cost of something we all value.

Finally, full compensation ensures there will be more accountability in decision-making. It is an unfortunate reality that resources are limited. Society does not have all the resources to produce all of the health care, education, and other goods that we might like. Because of this scarcity, we make trade-offs and choices. For example, a million dollars spent on species protection is unavailable for health care.

Given this reality, we must be aware of the full costs of species protection so we can make informed choices about which protection activities make sense. To put it bluntly, we must struggle with the difficult question of how much species protection is enough.

Third, I believe the bill should be less punitive. I think there's an interesting asymmetry in this bill. On the one hand, it's not promised to compensate people for any economic losses they incur. On the other hand, there are large fines and jail sentences set out for violations of the Species at Risk Act.

As previously mentioned, the lack of compensation combined with these penalties turn having endangered species on the property where you live or work into a liability. Given that people respond to incentives, the result will be that they will make their property less attractive to wildlife. They will also be less willing to cooperate with conservation groups.

This has been a big problem in the U.S. Once again, we would be wise not to repeat their mistakes. At a minimum, strict liability should not apply. It would be simply ludicrous to fine someone $250,000 for an accidental offence. In addition, the use of criminal law in this bill is excessive and unnecessary.

Finally, the bill should apply only to federal land. Bill C-5 as currently written can apply to federal, provincial, and private land. It should not apply to either provincial or private land. Federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction is simply unwarranted in this case.

Under the current form of the Endangered Species Protection Act, this will happen where the federal minister deems provincial laws inadequate. Since most citizens of Canada, whether they live in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or any other province, care about wildlife, any concerns they have about wildlife protection can be expressed directly to their provincial politicians.

In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the provinces are not doing a good job of protecting wildlife within their borders—although this is not to say that more can't always be done. I think it's also unnecessary and even counterproductive to apply the bill to private land. Where species at risk reside on private land and the landowner's activities are affecting the species, non-profit groups can work with landowners and arrange agreements that will be mutually beneficial. This is a direct and effective way to protect species.

• 0945

To apply Bill C-5 as currently written will undermine those efforts. Although Bill C-5 may indeed catch a few bad actors who deliberately harm wildlife on their property, this effect will be more than offset by the perverse incentives for the majority of Canadians who do care about wildlife.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank the committee for listening to my comments. Although I know some members disagree with particular points of my analysis, I think we can all agree that species protection is a noble and worthy goal.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Walsh, please.

Mr. Robert Walsh (President, Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations): Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Prior to beginning, I'd like to introduce my colleagues, volunteers from across Canada who are here with me today. I have Mr. Pat Whiteway, vice-president of the Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations, from Kelowna, British Columbia. I have Mr. Dennis Burns, who has travelled from Terrace Bay, Ontario, and who is president of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.

[Translation]

We are accompanied today by Yves Watier, the Vice-President and Director of the Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec which is based in Montreal.

[English]

Mr. Michel Garneau is general manager of CCSO from Nepean, Ontario, and Mr. Craig Nicholson is on the standing committee for the environment of the OFSC, from Toronto, Ontario.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the standing committee, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. My name is Robert Walsh, and I am president of the Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations, or the CCSO. I'm here to speak on behalf of the provincial and territorial snowmobile associations that make up our 26-year-old organization. In total, CCSO represents over 500,000 recreational snowmobilers who are family members of this country's 914 snowmobile clubs.

Beyond our passion for snowmobiling, we share a concern for our surroundings, as evidenced by our extensive volunteer stewardship activities. Our charity work generates over $1 million annually for various needy causes. Over the years, volunteers from snowmobile clubs have worked hard to develop and maintain over 134,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails. At a conservatively estimated replacement cost of $2,000 per kilometre, our national trail system represents an investment of $268 million. These figures do not begin to take into account the value of the millions of volunteer hours donated by members of our clubs to enable this entire system to function.

My presentation today will outline the vast extent of snowmobiling in Canada. It will discuss the relative—

The Chair: It would be better if you would focus on the bill.

Mr. Robert Walsh: Focus on the bill, sir? All right.

We believe our recommendations will help make the act a more workable and effective piece of legislation and one that will find active support among those committed to protecting and preserving our environment.

CCSO believes in an active, inclusive, and ongoing stewardship program of ensuring the preservation of our natural heritage. We endorse the provisions to permit delegation to organizations outside the government. We want to be actively involved in protecting the species at risk.

CCSO supports the notion clearly laid out in the preamble that all Canadians have a role to play in the conservation of wildlife and the efforts of individuals and communities. Currently, when discussing conservation throughout the act, the phrase “to the extent possible” is used consistently. This phrase should be removed. We are of the opinion that mandatory provisions for consultation will strengthen the public's confidence in this important process and encourage the concept of shared stewardship of species.

The scientific nature of appointees to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is commendable. This should result in clear scientific proposals being made for the protection of the species. To further enforce this point, we would ask that in subclause 21(1), the word “either” and the phrase “or has received with an application” be removed, thus ensuring objective and scientific evaluations in all cases.

We also believe any process to develop and implement recovery measures must be based on a comprehensive approach that recognizes biological, social, and economic issues. In the case of our sport, the many positive social and economic benefits of snowmobiling merit serious consideration because they are significant and far-reaching.

• 0950

CCSO suggests that certain key terms must be clarified throughout the act, as outlined in our brief. There are no definitions for the words “harm” or “harass”, and as these are fundamental to the protection of species, this is a shortcoming.

At one extreme, virtually any action can be construed as harm to a species. At the other, the act of harassment of wildlife must be heavily punished. The same ambiguity applies to the word “individual”. With respect to a species, use of this word casts a very wide net. As currently used, it may be possible to contravene the act inadvertently by stepping on pollen from a plant.

Now, in keeping with the need for the creation of a cooperative framework for species protection and preservation, we are concerned with the approach taken in the treatment of offences under the act. Clause 100 requires that a person charged must prove that, on a balance of probability, all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent the offence. We strongly endorse the need to punish woeful and destructive actions, but we do not believe these offences merit a “guilty until proven innocent” approach. This is especially true in the case of innocent or unintended acts. The use of due diligence as a defence puts an unreasonable onus on the landowners, users, and not-for-profit corporations in having to prove innocence.

Snowmobile trails are developed with an acute understanding of environmental needs, but to prove that in court would be an expensive burden on volunteers, given the enormous land base that we utilize for our trail system. We would ask that these offences be made mens rea offences, requiring the crown to demonstrate that violations were clearly intentional.

Further into this section, the scale of fines makes no distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit corporations. Since most snowmobile clubs are not-for-profit corporations, they would face crippling fines in the event of successful prosecution under the act. We would ask that this section be modified so that not-for-profit corporations face the same penalties as individuals.

The same concern exists for officers of corporations, where no distinction is made between for-profit and not-for-profit. As a result, recruitment of volunteers to snowmobile clubs and association boards of directors would become impossible if this section stands.

Finally, our organization has some concerns over the issue of compensation. As reflected in the preamble, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which the federal government has ratified, requires equitable sharing of both benefits and costs. Owners and land users subject to designation under the act should not be expected to bear the costs of protecting a species for the benefit of all Canadians, nor should businesses or communities that derive economic benefit from snowmobiling. The compensation clause suggests that the minister may provide compensation for any extraordinary impact of protecting habitat.

Fair and adequate compensation must be made available, so we ask that the word “may” be changed to “shall” and that the word “extraordinary” be removed from this clause. Suitable provisions must be made to compensate clubs, businesses, and communities in the event that sections of trail need to be moved to protect certain habitats.

It is critical to the success of this act that species be considered assets and not liabilities for landowners. To illustrate the lands and habitats currently classified as endangered species or bird habitats, please have a look at the map that we have provided and have here with us today. We'll have an opportunity. The areas marked in beige or with dots represent all areas that would presently fall under the guidelines of this bill. It's quite amazing. As you can clearly see, there's not very much land left in Canada that is not or will not be affected by this act.

The CCSO believes all Canadians must be afforded an opportunity to be involved in the process included in this important project. Bill C-5 could have serious repercussions on the millions of dollars and volunteer hours invested in our snowmobile trail system.

We support the goals of this legislation with the changes recommended in this presentation and in our brief. We look forward to working closely with you to ensure that all our natural heritage is preserved and enjoyed by all Canadians.

The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations thanks this committee for the opportunity to present our views on this important legislation.

• 0955

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. We appreciate that.

Well, we have a long list of parliamentarians who wish to ask questions. We'll start with Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, guests, for being here and for your testimony. I'd like to zero in on one major area, and the enforcement I'd like to ask about, too, although possibly we can get to that later.

The first area is with regard to the socio-economic impacts, to pretty well each of you, in terms of what this legislation might mean. I think all of us want legislation that will be effective and that will work. My feeling, and I'd like your view on this, is the necessity of having compensation dealt with in the legislation, not in recommendations—trust us—to come.

More important, I'd like to hear from snowmobilers, pipeliners, petroleum producers on how the government should deal with the socio-economic aspects.

There well may be an endangered species somewhere on a proposed pipeline coming from the Mackenzie Delta or from Alaska through Alberta or wherever. How should government deal with that issue? Or there could be an oil well that needs to be drilled in a place where there are endangered species. What are the necessary trade-offs from a socio-economic aspect that government, that legislators are going to have to face? That same problem could arise with snowmobiles and trails.

I wonder if each group could try to deal with that issue of the socio-economic impact.

The Chair: Perhaps we should invite them for a one-day seminar to discuss that. We could trust them to give short answers, possibly.

Mr. Shultz.

Mr. Nick Shultz: Referring specifically to the issue of how you address the trade-offs where you are proceeding with a project of some kind, an oil well project or a pipeline, that is being addressed today through the environmental assessment process, through the regulatory processes that are there, the specialized boards, the National Energy Board, the offshore boards, the provincial boards.

Mr. Bob Mills: You don't see this impacting on that?

Mr. Nick Shultz: It impacts it in the sense that this bill does not integrate itself into those processes, so I think we have mechanisms that work. This protection of endangered species is not new; this legislation is new. We need to integrate this into the processes that are there, better than is here, and also respect the fact that people are doing this work today.

The Chair: Ms. Swanson.

Ms. Elizabeth Swanson: You've posed a really hard question. It's fundamental to every piece of environmental legislation that I can think of that has come down the pike in, say, the last 10 to 15 years.

Overall, we're struggling as a society to find a balance. So I can't give you an easy answer. Let me touch on what I think are some relevant things to put your head around.

First and foremost, we start out and say that Parliament has clearly signalled that protection of species is important to them and to Canadians, and they want to do something about it. So I think we start there and say we hear the message and we as Canadians all have an interest, as a society, in looking after species at risk. So we start out with one social good.

We as Canadians also know it's important to be able to make a living and to carry on certain activities and to enjoy a quality of life. We as a society also say, yes, that is a social good.

So we have the rock and the hard place: Which is going to bend? Because protecting species at risk is going to cost something. For us, as a pipeline industry, when we sit back and try to reflect on that, it becomes a question of how you equitably distribute the cost and the benefits of legislation that's there for a social purpose.

• 1000

The costs of implementing this legislation, of providing habitat protection, in particular, is going to disproportionately fall on individual people and individual companies. I'm not sure in the scheme of things whether that is equitable.

So that links then into your question about compensation. If we recognize that the costs of achieving species protection is something we want as a society, and we also recognize that the burden of that is going to fall disproportionately on some groups, can we compensate so that it becomes more equitable?

We had the opportunity of meeting with Dr. Pearse and discussing the issues. Quite frankly, the vision of compensation is too narrow. It doesn't begin to address this whole notion of how you distribute the burden of doing something good.

I don't think the Pearse report goes far enough. It's superficial in that regard. There's a need to consider this more thoughtfully and to take a broader cut at the whole notion of making protection equitable.

That's a long-winded answer, isn't it?

The Chair: It was very thoughtful.

Other answers? Ms. Jones.

Ms. Laura Jones: Let me return to the first part of your question about the socio-economic impacts and the importance of compensation to these impacts.

Compensation is critical. As an environmentalist with economics training, I'm very concerned about the environmental impacts of not having full compensation in this bill because of the negative, perverse incentives that this will create.

There's no question, as I've said before, that Canadians care about wildlife. It may be the case that we want to do more to protect wildlife. If that's the case, we need to give serious consideration to how best to accomplish that goal. I don't believe the bill, as currently written, is the best way to accomplish that goal because of the perverse incentives that are created. There are many documented cases of this in the U.S.

I know we don't like to rely on anecdotal information too much, but just last week I was talking to someone who works for a coal company in Calgary. He told me that they're doing some consultation with stakeholders in the north of the province about developing a new project up there. There are two things these people are worried about. One is foot-and-mouth disease from foreigners and other people coming in and out of their community. The second thing they're worried about is they don't want the coal company to do anything to make the habitat more attractive to wildlife. Why? Because they're worried about what might happen to their property values if endangered species begin to find their habitat attractive. I think this is a serious problem.

For those of us who really care about wildlife, it would be foolish of us to ignore the evidence of this kind of effect in the States. One of the first basic lessons that economists learn is that incentives matter to people. If you change the incentives, you're going to change their behaviour. For Canadians, that will be very difficult because, as I've said before, most Canadians care very much about wildlife, which is part of why our record is not all that bad. We certainly don't have the kind of crisis that some other countries face.

The Chair: Mr. Walsh, please.

Mr. Robert Walsh: Getting back to our position as both provincial and federal organizations, over the years we've worked very closely with provincial departments and natural resources in laying out our trail system. Primarily in a lot of the northern regions our trail system goes directly from point A to point B to be able to accommodate our snowmobilers with accessing food and hotels. So we've been very careful to design our trail system as such.

• 1005

When we talk about socio-economic, if we're faced with any changes to our system, this is the case where we need this consultation we talked about, with all the stakeholders, to make sure the right decisions are made and that due process is taken throughout the whole change, or whatever the introduction is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the impact of this bill or any future legislation and the fact that it is being thrust on the provinces, I think Ms. Jones' comments were fairly clear. She argued that it was unacceptable and inconceivable to impose federal legislation, particularly on provinces that are making a considerable effort to protect endangered species, even though no one is denying that there is room for improvement.

Mr. Schultz, you expressed opposition to the approach advocated in this bill which would result in the federal government imposing its regulations on the provinces. You specifically mentioned clause 61 of the bill.

My question is as follows: when it comes to protecting endangered species, what approach would you advocate? Would you rather there be no legislation at all? Would you prefer legislation that applies only to federal lands? Or, do you want legislation that applies to provinces that don't already have their own legislation in place? What approach do you advocate to address the problem of endangered species?

[English]

Mr. Nick Schultz: Thank you, sir.

I think the approach we would take is not the last one you mentioned, where I think it is the obligation of the federal government to respect the approaches taken to regulations by provinces.

Each province may approach this issue in a different way. Some may not choose to approach the actual framework of legislation in the way that the federal government is, because they know they're already dealing with it through other mechanisms they have in place, other departments of government, or regulatory agencies that address those issues.

We believe matters within provincial jurisdiction should remain in provincial jurisdiction and the criminal law power should not be used as a disguise for imposing federal regulation over the provinces.

As to the precise boundary when it comes to the environment, that is of course complex. Where you have projects that attract federal jurisdiction, such as interprovincial pipelines and so on, they do attract federal law. Federal lands attract federal law. Migratory birds, and so on, attract federal law. So I think what we would see is a more traditional approach to federal jurisdiction and not this more ambitious extension of federal jurisdiction.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Would anyone else care to comment?

[English]

Ms. Laura Jones: I would like to make a comment on that. I think, to answer the same question you put forward, that in an ideal world we wouldn't need any federal legislation. I know that to some members this sounds like an extreme position. I think that's partly because as Canadians we do care so much about wildlife. Our identity in many ways, our past history and our present history, is very much linked to wildlife and so it seems natural to want to protect them in any way possible, including passing legislation. But I think we have to be very careful in this regard that we don't confuse the volume of legislation and regulations with environmental protection. In some cases we do need regulations and legislation to protect the environment.

I know Canada has been accused of being an environmental laggard because we don't have federal endangered species legislation, but if you look at our actual record on extinctions, things are not as dire as they might seem.

The last mammal extinction in Canada occurred not yesterday, or last week, but 81 years ago, and that was only a specific population, the Queen Charlotte Islands population of woodland caribou. The last bird extinction occurred 86 years. Most of the 11 extinctions in our recorded history were the unfortunate result of overhunting, which is something that has been resolved, or largely resolved, anyway, with the possible exception of the fisheries. So I think we have to be careful about equating the volume of paper with what our actual record is.

As I've said before, of course there's always more that can be done, and as other panellists have commented, we have to be aware of trade-offs. But I think in any case in an ideal world we would have no law, but the second best would be that it would only apply to federal land. I don't think it's necessary that it apply on provincial land, because when you look at the record of the provinces it's been pretty good. And many of the provinces, including Quebec, have their own legislation.

• 1010

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jones, earlier you said you have a degree in economics. I was wondering if you could tell us what academic background your co-author has who wrote the report Crying Wolf?

Ms. Laura Jones: She was actually not as much a co-author as a research assistant. So she helped me collect some of the background material. I'm the main author of this report. And she has a bachelor's degree, as many research assistants do. But—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And what is her field?

Ms. Laura Jones: If you're questioning the credibility of the report, I think it's more instructive perhaps to look at the credentials of those who have reviewed the report. It was reviewed by three economists, including PhDs from the University of Rochester and the University of Chicago. It was also reviewed by several biologists who have, combined, over 30 years of experience in government in both Canada and in the U.S.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm looking at the report and she has a degree in literature and a diploma in French cooking.

In your publication Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species, you make the claim that COSEWIC's definition of the term “species” does not correspond to the biological definition of the species. You go on to recommend a definition from the Oxford Paperback Reference Concise Science Dictionary 1996, which defines “species” as:

A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of similar individuals that can usually breed among themselves and produce fertile off-spring.

I understand that the Americans do not use such a limited definition under their act and that this is not a definition that would be accepted by most working scientists.

So I'm wondering, are you really suggesting that all these Canadian and American biologists have been wrong for all these years and that we should rely on the Oxford paperback dictionary instead?

Ms. Laura Jones: I have to disagree with you that most scientists don't accept that definition. I know there is a debate among biologists. Some of them are called the “lumpers” and the “splitters”, depending on how they define species. But I think in the U.S. they've gotten themselves into a lot of trouble by using a more subjective definition of species and having, as I stated in my testimony, their list be overinflated by some of these distinct populations.

In the extreme case, what's to stop us from declaring that the grasshoppers in your backyard are a distinct population from the ones in my backyard? I think we need a more objective vision for that. Many of the biologists I consulted agree with the definition based on whether two individual members can breed and reproduce fertile offspring. So I have to disagree that it's not an accepted biological definition.

In addition, I would suggest that in many cases we may be concerned about distinct populations. And those concerns should be included in a specific listing.

If you look at COSEWIC's list, you have two separate listings for grizzly bears; you have three separate listings for beluga whales. A grizzly bear should be listed once, with areas of specific concerns listed alongside that particular listing. It's misleading for Canadians when they look at the list and there are all these double and triple countings.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think if you consult with any of the Royal Society scientists, they would have some strong disagreement with you.

Your approach has a very strong economic approach, and I do have training in economics and have taught economics myself. The problem with modern, current approaches to economics, and certainly what we've learned in university, is that it does not take environmental externalities into account.

However, having said that, because you and your institute are such a champion of free enterprise pursuits, it seems to me that it would make more sense, even from an economic perspective, let alone a biological perspective.... Indeed all of the scientists who have come before our committee have argued quite strenuously for geographically distinct subspecies to be included in the definition in our legislation.

• 1015

But what I would like to say is that if you are taking a look at certain, for example, geographically distinct species of salmon, even from an economic perspective it makes more sense to look at them as a special area of concern and as a special subspecies under COSEWIC, as opposed to listing the entire species of salmon.

Ms. Laura Jones: Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point, and maybe you need some more scientists to come before the committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I find this very interesting.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Reed, please.

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

I'm wondering whether somehow the opinions that are being drawn here are not deviating from the intent of this bill. The basic intent, for all its flaws and all its goodness or whatever it is, is to enlist the consciousness, cooperation, and enthusiasm of all Canadians for the protection of species at risk.

Contrary to a comment that I heard—I don't want to single out Ms. Jones—about the word “manage”, it's not the intent of this bill to set up a management regime for species at risk, but rather the reverse. In other words, it's to allow species to thrive and evolve in their own natural way without management. Because what the risk...if there's a risk that has developed through the actions of humans, then that's management, too. That's negative management. That's the kind of management that will ultimately foster the demise of a species, like the passenger pigeon, if you like, or the great awk, whatever. So that's the intent of the bill.

The other thing that I'm not hearing here is the recognition that the majority of species at risk are not on land; they're aquatic. The fact is that one of the major contributors to the aquatic risk is urbanization in Canada.

One of the weaknesses, I think, of the discussions that take place here is that somehow, if you're an urbanite, the species at risk are out there somewhere—the spotted owl, or the grizzly bear in Dease Lake, or whatever it happens to be. We're not realizing that every time we flush a toilet in Toronto, we're contributing to the degradation of where aquatic species live. It bothers me that we somehow tend to avoid that.

Now, Mr. Walsh, you mentioned wanting distinction between for-profit and non-profit organizations. I must disagree with that because it doesn't matter. The species don't know whether someone's making a profit doing something or somebody's not making a profit doing something.

It's the same weakness I see with COSEWIC itself. It recognizes political boundaries. But species don't. They don't know whether there's a border and so on. So sometimes species are listed to be at risk in Canada, when in fact they're plentiful in North America.

These are really tough issues that we're trying to deal with. I'm trying to put a perspective on this as to where I'm coming from, and where I hope the bill is coming from, with all of its weaknesses.

• 1020

I regret I wasn't here early for your total presentation, Mr. Teal, but you are quite critical of the content of this bill as it is written at the moment. How does your cousin Exxon in the States deal with the American Endangered Species Act? What we're trying to do is divorce ourselves from the weaknesses in that bill, the elements that cause ranchers to advertise a ranch for sale and guarantee no endangered species on this land. How do you square your position with this bill with the American legislation?

Mr. Andy Teal: I haven't had any direct experience as far as the issues associated with the American experience are concerned, and particularly with Exxon and how they have approached this issue. But perhaps what I can do is come back to what we're looking at here in Canada in Bill C-5 and the objective we're all in agreement with, which is that we need to protect species that are at risk. How do we best do that?

One of the fundamental issues here is the potential for criminal prosecution for inadvertent action. That's really the fundamental issue. If we could go from strict liability to mens rea, I think a lot of the issues and concerns as far as our industry is concerned will go away.

So as we look at that and the Canadian environment and how we best protect species, obviously we need to make sure there's clarity as far as jurisdictional boundaries are concerned, who has what responsibility for habitat management, and so on. As long as we have clarity as industry, we've proven in the past that through the regulatory processes that are in place, through the various approvals and permits that we have and must live by, and we do, there is adequate protection to address issues such as species at risk. We have done that in the past, and again we have a number of examples that allow us to be able to show credibility in what we currently have in place.

So as we look at this, we need to be really clear as to that jurisdictional boundary, the issues there, and if we can do away with strict liability for non-intentional acts, I think we will have the clarity we need.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm really pleased to hear that in the main, everybody is agreeing that protecting species at risk is a noble cause, because certainly that's the feeling of the government.

I want to go on record as correcting one of the statements that was made earlier. Actually, as of May 2000, COSEWIC's list showed at least four species that have been declared extinct, in 1975, in 1986, and two in 1999. So there have been species declared extinct more recently than 80 years ago.

Ms. Laura Jones: When I made my comment I was talking specifically about the last mammal and the last bird extinction. I know there have been other extinctions, according to their list, mainly in the fish category, interestingly enough.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Actually, I believe two of these are....

Ms. Laura Jones: Lichens?

Mrs. Karen Redman: We have the longjaw sisko, the Banff long-nose dace, the Hadley Lake stickleback, and the limnetic stickleback, which are species—

Ms. Laura Jones: Fish.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, just for clarification.

Ms. Jones, throughout your presentation you imply that market forces will conserve species at risk. But recently in the United States, corporations have been claiming that in fact because we have no species at risk act in Canada, we are actually providing a perverse subsidy for resource companies.

What arguments would you present against the imposition of trade sanctions by the United States on these grounds?

Ms. Laura Jones: First of all, I would say that we can look at our record, which is not a perfect one, but it's certainly a pretty good record at protecting species.

In addition, I'd say there are a number of initiatives in Canada right now to protect species. There are a number of private initiatives. There are hundreds of private conservation groups that work to protect species. We've heard about some of the corporate activities in Canada, and I believe that's largely because Canadians do care, and so they want their companies to represent that concern.

There are also a number of federal statutes in place, some of which have already been mentioned today—the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act—that cover some of this territory, and there are a number of provincial initiatives.

• 1025

So although we don't have federal legislation, that doesn't mean that as Canadians we are not doing anything to protect our species. As has been stated again and again, not just in this room but by the media and by individual Canadians, Canadians really do care about wildlife, and they express those concerns in a variety of different ways. Some of them take actions to attract wildlife to their private property; some of them donate to private conservation groups or to research initiatives on wildlife. I think that is very positive, and Canadians have a lot to be proud of in that regard.

In response to your comment about corporations, we don't have a perfect record, but I don't think we'd have a perfect record with federal legislation. So are we doing a good job? I think the answer is yes. Is there more we can do? I think the answer is always going to be yes, whether or not we have federal legislation in place.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So that would be your response to the fact that this is not a perverse subsidy, if we were charged by the United States, by not having a national structure and a coordinated effort? Those would be the arguments you would offer?

Ms. Laura Jones: I would say that we do in many ways have a coordinated effort. Provincial wildlife ministers get together and talk about wildlife; we have a federal group, COSEWIC, that looks at listing species at risk; we have the RENEW initiative that looks at funding recovery for some of those species on the list.

I'm not really sure what this bill is going to accomplish in addition to what's already going on in Canada, other than that the way it's currently written, I'm very concerned about the perverse incentives that will be created. I think it will be counterproductive, frankly. If we don't have full compensation in this bill, it's likely to be counterproductive. So it may look good, we may look green by passing this bill, but in terms of actual species protection, the resources we would spend to monitor, administer, and enforce this bill would be better spent if they were given directly to the private conservation groups that are working on the ground to protect species in Canada.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Part of your logic escapes me in the fact that we would all agree that there are species at risk, right now, as we speak, in Canada, because there are landowners and private citizens who value species at risk and are protecting them and their habitats, and I wouldn't disagree that the balance we've tried to create in this bill is to not make compensation a perverse incentive. But your logic seems to say to me that if we provide any compensation, it will automatically be a perverse incentive. Yet we have Canadians right now with no compensation, doing exactly the kind of stewardship programming we're asking them to continue to do voluntarily.

Ms. Laura Jones: That's an excellent question, but I'm saying, look, those Canadians who are voluntarily engaging in these activities, how likely are they to continue to engage in those activities at the same level if they're worried that attracting these species to their property may mean they can be charged? If they inadvertently harm one of these species, they can face a $250,000 fine. Wouldn't you think twice about that? I would, and I care about species.

The other fact of the matter is, if you are prevented from using some of your property as a result of having habitat or species on your property, again, you may be faced with the following dilemma: do you make your property unattractive to avoid the loss in value, or do you face losing the value?

In theory, this may not sound like a big deterrent, but in reality, in the U.S., some of the documented examples of this are pretty extreme.

One woman planned to retire on the value of her $870,000 property. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared it habitat and the value fell to $30,000, and there was no compensation. What kind of message does that send to her neighbours?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Clearly we have made every effort to learn from the United States, and this is in no way modelled after theirs but rather to learn from those lessons.

I'd like to ask Mr. Walsh a question, if I still have time, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

I understand that on your organization's website it states that the impact of snowmobilers on the environment is actually quite minimal. At the same time, on that website it mentions that Bill C-5 could result in the closure of snowmobiling areas in every province.

• 1030

Down the road, under this proposed legislation, a critical habitat safety net could be invoked for a species and certain activities could be controlled in areas. But it would be because a recovery team, in consultation with stakeholders such as snowmobile associations, believes that needs to take place because the survival or recovery of a species is threatened.

If the impact of your sport on the environment is truly minimal and doesn't include endangering threatened species, what do you have to fear from species at risk legislation?

Mr. Robert Walsh: We don't have anything to fear. That's the reason we're here today, to work cooperatively with you.

The concern, which we have stressed throughout, is that there needs to be very clear consultation, and any decisions made to close any tracks of land should be done on a scientific basis as well as bringing in the socioeconomic aspect.

As far as snowmobiling is concerned, over the years we've always worked very cooperatively with our provincial resource departments to make sure the trails are developed in areas where they will have no impact on the environment, such as through streams and rivers, that type of thing. What we've stated in our brief is based on studies that have been done over the years both in Ontario and in some states, and it's all scientific. The statement is true.

A lot of the land we develop our trails on is private land, and we're concerned about the loss of land for landowners and that type of thing. That's basically where we're coming from.

We want to be part of the solution, and we want to be consulted. That's the biggest thing. If there needs to be a closure of a specific trail due to a specific reason, by all means. If we as snowmobilers have a trail in an area that is endangering wildlife or whatever, let's do something about it. We want to do that. We want to be part of the solution.

The Chair: Merci, Madam Redman.

Next is Madam Carroll, suivi par Madame Scherrer and the chair, and then we'll go to a second round.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would direct my question to the representative of the Fraser Institute, Ms. Jones. In listening to the conversation this morning, I hear you reinforce that Canadians care about endangered species, and it's good that they care, that frequently ministers of the environment meet, and it's good that they get together and talk. But my concern is that all that really does is produce a patchwork quilt approach to something as important as environmental law, such as the endangered species legislation. It's good to have voluntary responses again.

But it's funny, just yesterday I was talking to a gentleman from Suncor. He said to me, do you know what we want from you politicians, you public policy developers? We want you to develop laws. We want public policy, which is created by the development of laws, because we as business people want certainty. We don't want, I would suggest, a patchwork quilt and good feelings about caring. We want certainty, because in that environment we as business people can function.

So I would suggest, Ms. Jones, that if all we did here with regard to endangered species were to take the kind of approach I think you are by implication suggesting, we would fail to do what we have been sent here to do, which is to pass laws that have accountability, are well known, and do in fact have the objective of protecting the environment, in this case endangered species. I find it odd to hear someone from an organization as devoted to business as the Fraser Institute suggest anything but what you would want your world to be applied to the job we have on hand.

That was my preamble. Now I'll come to the question I have. You've expressed concern that the bill would cause severe economic impacts, and you mention criticisms of the U.S. act. I'm more concerned about what's happening here in Canada. Quite frankly, I have listened to these anecdotal references from a number of witnesses as to what goes on in the United States, and it's anecdotal, and I have heard, as have other members here, very little proof that they have in fact had economic tough times as a result of that act.

• 1035

At the federal level, both the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act have far more stringent requirements applying to landowners. The Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits any disturbance of nests and the Fisheries Act prevents any disturbance to waters with fish in them. Yet we've heard no evidence that these acts have imposed hardships on farmers or any frivolous prosecutions for unintended harm to fish or migratory birds.

At the provincial level we have four jurisdictions that actually go further than SARA by providing mandatory habitat protection, and none of these acts have any compensation provisions or incentive programs like SARA's to minimize any impacts on landowners. Yet going back nearly three decades, we've heard no evidence that these provisions have caused significant economic hardships to landowners. Can you suggest how SARA would impose undue hardship in a more severe way than those acts? And please stay focused here. I don't want you to go off in a horizontal direction.

Thank you.

Ms. Laura Jones: I think SARA does have the potential to be more severe than those acts, at least if you intend to enforce SARA according to the way it's currently written. You're talking about fining individuals $250,000 for unintentional acts that hurt species.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Do you really think it's going to occur that there will be a $250,000 fine? I wish you would resist the hyperbole of that particular example and deal with the act.

Ms. Laura Jones: But that's what you're proposing to write into law, so how can we ignore that as hyperbole? With all due respect, this is what is written in your bill. You have vague measures to deal with compensation and then you have a lot of detail on what the punishments will be. So how else are we supposed to interpret that?

In terms of your reference to anecdotal evidence in the United States, there are lots of documented examples of cases where individuals have been put in this difficult position of deciding that they're going to make their habitat less attractive because they risk losing the value. I think the issue with compensation is that if we're talking about doing something that all Canadians value, then all Canadian taxpayers should bear the cost of that. The way the bill is currently written, not all Canadian taxpayers will bear the cost. If you change that provision to say that full compensation will be paid, then all Canadians will be paying for something that all Canadians value.

You mentioned accountability. That will introduce accountability. There will be accountability in terms of deciding what species to protect and how much species protection is enough species protection, because, as I said, there's always more that can be done, but we're going to face trade-offs here. If we spend more to protect species, there will be less available to achieve other desirable social goals. So I think that needs to be part of the consideration.

In terms of your first comment about the patchwork quilt, is the patchwork quilt perfect? I agree with you that it's not perfect, but I think it's pretty good, and if we're talking about spending more resources to protect species, my position is those resources would be better spent directly on species conservation rather than on administering, interpreting, and enforcing this law you're proposing as currently written. I understand you disagree with that position, but again, we may have to agree to disagree. At least we can agree that the goal of species protection is a noble one.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Nobility and two dollars sometimes gets you on the Toronto subway.

I'd like to follow up on one other point before the chair gives the mike to someone else.

Again, let's go back and get off the anecdotal here, and we'll use the American example, which you and many people have mentioned, Ms. Jones. Let's have some actual data. Another study by the United States Congress's General Accounting Office looked at the impacts of the United States Endangered Species Act over a five-year period. This report showed unequivocally that the legislation did not stop development. In fact, 99.9% of all development projects under the act proceeded.

• 1040

This is not anecdotal. This is to infuse some information from that American scenario, which is constantly raised here, about “shoot, shovel, and shut up”. We hear this constantly. Nobody seems to have instances, but it's the big stick that's getting brought here. So I would like to mention this one, since it does seem to have a little bit of empirical data to it.

Ms. Laura Jones: I think there's plenty of evidence that's not anecdotal. And, yes, some development has not been prevented, you're right. Has it stopped all development? No, absolutely not. Have there been cases where it has stopped development? Yes. There have been cases where it's stopped schools from being built. Look at what happened in western Washington as a result of the spotted owl.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'd love to discuss that with you.

Ms. Laura Jones: But I'm not even arguing that in some cases development shouldn't be stopped. In some cases, maybe that's the right thing to do. What I'm saying is when you do that, you need to have full compensation. Otherwise, that's when you get into these incentive problems.

I'd be happy to provide you with lots of examples that are not anecdotal but that are well documented, and give you people you can talk to about this. I think we both share the desire to protect wildlife. What I'm worried about, as an economist who understands that incentives matter to people, is that the incentives created in this bill won't stop everyone from caring about wildlife or from protecting wildlife, but at the margin, some people will decide to make their property unattractive, and that's counterproductive; it's counter to the intention of this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Carroll.

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer.

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

I'm afraid that my comments will be somewhat redundant since everyone seems to be on the same wavelength this morning.

My comments are directed to Ms. Jones. I'm having trouble following your logic, namely your contention that overall, the vast majority of Canadians are in favour of protecting species at risk and are prepared to act voluntarily. You've also stated that most provincial laws are adequate and that many volunteer groups are actively involved in ensuring compliance with these laws.

If we follow your logic, then we must conclude that those who fail to protect species at risk are acting with malicious intent, except in cases where people are negligent or ignorant of the facts. In short, only a fraction of the population will deliberately attack species at risk. As I see it, these individuals are likely to be repeat offenders.

Why then shouldn't they be fined severely to prevent them from further endangering species? I can't imagine filing charges against a snowmobiler who might have killed a fly or slapping him with a $250,000 fine. However, people who act deliberately and with malicious intent should be severely punished. The government mustn't be too soft when it comes to fines.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Jones.

Ms. Laura Jones: Maybe there are a few people who deliberately harm species. I would hope, and I sincerely believe, they're in the minority. As I've stated again and again this morning, I really believe Canadians do care about wildlife. I also believe you're right, that this bill may indeed catch a few of those bad actors who deliberately harm wildlife on their property.

But I also believe that the effect of catching those few bad actors will be more than offset by the effect created by this incentive problem for the majority of people who do care. I also believe you're going to spend a lot of money to go after those few bad actors and that money could be better spent directly on conservation efforts. Even with this bill, and even with spending a lot of money, you may not catch all of the bad actors. That's an unfortunate reality, and it's certainly not unique to this endangered species debate.

• 1045

We spend a lot of money in other areas of public policy trying to catch the bad actors and we're not always successful or effective, even with laws in place. The drug trade comes to mind in that regard.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have one last brief comment. Clearly, a positive incentive can have spinoffs. At the same time, although it's impossible to catch everyone who acts with malicious intent, these individuals could be harshly fined and an example made of them. This too can serve as another kind of incentive.

Sometimes, a clear and decisive fine, reported publicly, could get people to pay attention. Anyone planning to buck the system or not comply with the law might think twice before acting. The legislation would be taken more seriously and thus the effect of this initiative would be beneficial.

[English]

Ms. Laura Jones: I agree with you that it may create those incentives for people who are bad actors, but unfortunately that's not all it does.

Imagine you're in the position where you have a piece of land and you can do something that will make it attractive for wildlife. If that wildlife comes to your piece of land, you know that this bill is being taken seriously and it's being enforced. People will be punished if they harm the wildlife, even if it's inadvertent. Fines are very high and there's even possible jail time. That puts you in an impossible dilemma, doesn't it? You'd like to have the wildlife on your property, but you're worried about this problem. And that's the problem with the bill as currently written.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Herron, for five minutes, and then the chair, and then we'll go for a second round.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry I was multi-tasking here a little today.

We're not in support of the bill at the moment for a couple of reasons. One is the scientific listing. We think scientists should decide that. It shouldn't be one of political choice. We should have mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, and this is where my question is going to go. We think migratory birds should be included as well. Clearly, the compensatory regime is still too unclear in order to build the consensus we need.

My first question to Ms. Jones refers to the issue that it should only apply to federal lands and not to provincial or private lands. One aspect of it is it says it may protect critical habitat on federal lands but yet it can intervene directly in the province on the private side of the equation.

In 1996 the provinces and the federal government agreed to a national wildlife accord for protecting species at risk. Why wouldn't we want to have a law that said if there's a provincial statute in play, the federal law need not apply if it's equitable and agreed to? And the mechanism to define “equitable” is the existing accord we already have from 1996. Why wouldn't we want to include that?

Secondly, when the Species at Risk Working Group, the SARWG, had these radical environmentalists, like the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian Mining Association, and even the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners...if they're amenable to actually looking at this issue within a private land perspective, doesn't that show there is some goodwill, even in the private sector?

Ms. Laura Jones: The brief answer to your first question, if you already have existing consultation in place why do you need the law...I'm not sure what else it would add.

You'll have to remind me about your second question.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps I'll enhance my first question. If the laws are equitable, as defined, but there's some circumstance—for instance, on occasion in this country we have these federal-provincial scraps—where perhaps we're not protecting a species at risk, this would be more like a safety net scenario.

• 1050

The second question is, on your presentation about not including private lands, if people like the Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association, and the 400,000 woodlot owners in Canada are thinking there's a way to do this through stewardship and incentives, then why shouldn't we apply it to private lands as well?

Ms. Laura Jones: Let me answer your second question first. I think you're right, it does show good faith that these people are willing to come to the table and that they're interested in conservation initiatives. I think if you talk to them, they would agree that the cooperative approach is preferable. We already have a lot of cooperative approaches that apply, that are working on private lands. We have groups like the Nature Conservancy, like the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, like Ducks Unlimited, and many other smaller organizations working with landowners. These organizations are doing a terrific job of identifying where the most serious problems are and then focusing their resources on those problems. So I agree with you that there's good faith in that.

In terms of your first question, I guess my position is that in an ideal world, we wouldn't have any legislation at all, but I'm making...because I don't think it's necessary, and I'm worried that this version of the legislation will be very counterproductive. In my comments, though, I'm talking about improvements to this bill, and I think an improvement would be to say that it applies on federal land, it doesn't apply on provincial land, because I don't think there are many cases where this safety net clause would be necessary anyway.

On private land, we already have a lot of working initiatives. Again, the resources we could spend developing and enforcing and monitoring this legislation I think would be more effectively spent on the goal that, we all agree, is what we'd like, and that's more species protection.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

A brief question and then we'll start the second round.

Ms. Jones, there seems to be widespread reliance, not just this morning but in past meetings as well, on provincial performance, particularly in the case of the Fraser Institute. Could you tell the committee how many species are listed by COSEWIC for the province of British Columbia?

Ms. Laura Jones: How many species on COSEWIC's list are at risk in the province of British Columbia? Is that your question?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Laura Jones: I don't know exactly how many are at risk. I know there are some of COSEWIC's listings—grizzly bears, for example, caribou—

The Chair: I will bring you up to speed on this. There are 44 that COSEWIC has proposed. Do you know how many have been approved by cabinet in Victoria?

Ms. Laura Jones: I know they're looking at over 700 in Victoria.

The Chair: No, it's wrong. I'm asking you how many species have been approved by the province by way of—

Ms. Laura Jones: How many have been approved for their list?

The Chair: Yes, that are legally listed by the Province of British Columbia. It's three, three out of 44, which means about 7% of those listed by the scientific community, by COSEWIC.

Earlier you said to Ms. Carroll, if I understood you correctly, that a patchwork quilt is pretty good. Well, let me give you some more elements of this quilt that you think is pretty good.

In Alberta, the COSEWIC scientific list consists of 18 species, and five have been legally listed by the province. Actually, that is a pretty good percentage, 28%.

In the case of Ontario, 74 have been listed by the scientific community and 17 have been approved politically on the legal list.

• 1055

In the case of Quebec, 26 have been proposed by the scientific community, three have been put on the list by the province, 12%. Does that satisfy you?

Ms. Laura Jones: I guess we have different measures by which to evaluate whether the provinces are doing an effective job.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. You can't say that they have different measures.

Ms. Laura Jones: Please let me finish.

The Chair: Excuse me, let me finish. You have a scientific list, and then you have a political list. The figures speak for themselves, unless you disagree on—

Ms. Laura Jones: And which is which?

The Chair: —what is the meaning of numbers.

Ms. Laura Jones: Which is the scientific and which is the political?

The Chair: In which case, give us an indication as to what you mean by numbers.

Ms. Laura Jones: When I look at how serious an endangered species problem we have in Canada, I look first for the most serious. What is the most serious indicator of a problem? To me, the most serious indicator of a problem is extinctions. How many recent extinctions do you have in B.C., Alberta, Quebec? Then I look at what else is going on to protect species.

The Chair: Unfortunately, the scientific community does not agree with you. The scientific community looks at endangered species. That's our benchmark, Ms. Jones. So you'd better do your homework better.

Second round, Mr. Forseth.

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

As a reaction, Mr. Chair, although listing may differ, there are other statutes, such as in British Columbia the Forest Practices Code, and other things that guide the behaviour of industrial activity out in the woodlands.

But I want to address my specific question. On page 49 of the bill, clause 100 simply says:

Due diligence is a defence in a prosecution for an offence.

Most of the witnesses have addressed this issue, and I would like them to explain in better detail the perverse incentive, the disincentive, or why due diligence is not a particularly wise course in this bill. The issue of mens rea would be better, the guilty mind—the concept is suggested. So perhaps in the order of presentation, we could have a couple of tight answers on why mens rea is preferred and why clause 100 should be replaced.

Mr. Nick Schultz: Mr. Chairman, do you wish me to start?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Nick Schultz: Thank you. I'll be brief.

Due diligence is a concept that's typically found in regulatory statutes. Our industry is well acquainted with the due diligence standard. We believe it is appropriate in circumstances where you are operating in accordance with a regulatory regime that has clear standards and clear expectations and a permitting arrangement that also allows you to know that if you conduct yourself in a particular fashion, you are doing what the law requires. So we do focus on compliance, our members focus on compliance, and they develop extensive compliance programs to ensure that the due diligence standard is met.

Due diligence, in my respectful submission, is not an appropriate tool to place in a law of general application that's built on the federal criminal law, that places an obligation on every Canadian, when they're driving down the highway, whether they're taking a troop of scouts out into the bush for a hike or anything else, to establish that they have the kinds of management practices our members put into place when they run industrial facilities.

That in a nutshell is our perspective on this. We believe clause 100 should be revised to make it clear that fault must be established in any prosecution and that this should not be left to the discretion of any number of enforcement officials across the land, whether they like you or not, to decide that if you've done something inadvertently, they'll let you tell it to the judge, because they don't want to hear it from you. I think every one of us in this room has had some experience with officials who have taken that kind of approach, if they're given the power to do it. So we believe the law should be clear in this regard.

Ms. Elizabeth Swanson: I will not add to what Mr. Schultz has said, but let's break down your comment. I think there are two parts. Should there be the risk of being penalized for an inadvertent offence? In other words, you didn't mean to, but you did. So all the crown has to prove is that you did the act, and then it's up to you to try to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that you took reasonable care or you believed in a set of facts reasonably, so you shouldn't be then convicted.

• 1100

That's what the real difference is. When you don't have a guilty mind, mens rea, as part of the crown's burden, you'll be convicted of an offence if you don't step to the plate and say, listen, I took all reasonable care, or I reasonably believed in a set of facts, and had they been true, I would have been okay.

So it really talks about who has the burden of proof and what has to be shown by the state before a citizen can be convicted. I think our member companies would say our preference would be that to enforce the provisions of this particular act, we stick with the two-part offence. You have to have a guilty mind, in other words, you intentionally did something that is contravening this legislation, and you did the act complained of. Both of those elements have to be proven by the state before you, the citizen, can be convicted. That's our preference.

If, however, it's the wisdom of the folk here that there ought to be the possibility of convicting someone just by proving a guilty act, unless you can establish due diligence, then you're guilty. If that's your wisdom, I think our companies would say, manage the risk, and that's what we do. There's a new regime, fair enough, how do we manage the risk? To manage the risk of potentially contravening the act, could you help us understand what would satisfy the state as to reasonable care in avoiding the harm or being informed about species, their whereabouts, and what they're doing, so we're never in a position of not knowing the facts?

So there it is from our point of view then. We think it's more reasonable to enforce this legislation by requiring the crown to prove both the existence of a guilty mind, the mens rea, and the guilty act. We think that's better. On the other hand, if it's the wisdom of Parliament to proceed with the possibility of conviction for only a guilty act, could we, please, have some certainty about what we can say in our defence, so that we can manage the risk?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have one supplemental. I want to ask a question of the Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations. One of the things that is seen as most intrusive in your activities is the noise from the vehicles. I'm wondering if you have made any effort to establish noise standards within your own organization. One standard I've heard about is 80 decibels of white noise at full spectrum from idle acceleration bursts at three metre circumference from the snowmobile. We know that some of these vehicles can be heard from miles away, and the particular sound spectrum is such that it is beyond human hearing, or whatever, which is extremely intrusive. I think you've keyed in very much on the fact that when this bill comes into force, your activities may greatly be affected. In anticipation of trouble with the bill for your activities, I wonder if your organization is doing its own research to try to establish some standards within your organization, so that perhaps you can adopt some kind of stamp of approval in controlling your own behaviour.

Mr. Robert Walsh: Those are very good points. Our reason for being here today is that as stewards of the environment, we as an organization and our provincial associations don't agree with a lot of the after-market things that are going on, and we're working in provincial respects to legislate against that type of thing.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I have with me today, Mr. Ed Klim, who is the president of ISMA and works very closely with the EPA, and he can give specific answers to that question.

• 1105

Mr. Edward J. Klim (President, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association): Good morning. Thank you.

Quickly, in response to your question and your comments, we agree that there are a number of snowmobiles, a very small percentage, that are modified, that have after-market exhaust systems, and do misrepresent the industry. They are loud and obtrusive, and we support laws that remove those products from the marketplace. I think it's important to know that all snowmobiles built and sold in Canada are SSCC certified, which is a certification standard that's recognized by Transport Canada, and all snowmobiles built and sold in Canada undergo two separate tests. One is from the Society of Automotive Engineers, an SAEJ192 test, a test at wide open throttle. So it tests the snowmobile at the maximum noise limit at 50 feet. That particular test requires that all snowmobiles meet the standard of 78 db at wide open throttle—

Mr. Paul Forseth: At 50 feet.

Mr. Edward Klim: At 50 feet, yes, sir.

And there's a second test, a J1161 test, which is a pass-by test at 15 miles an hour, and all snowmobiles can emit no more that 73 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet. Both of those tests are conducted by a third-party independent testing laboratory, U.S. Testing Company, headquartered in New Jersey. They test products all over the world and are probably the largest single certification company internationally.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Is there any study related to those standards, which I think biologists might consider not really sufficient as non-intrusive to critical habitat areas? Have you any material you can cite for the committee or send later that relates those kinds of industrial standards, meant perhaps to protect human hearing, to biology and wildlife?

Mr. Edward Klim: Yes, sir, there have been numerous studies done internationally that show that snowmobiles, when operated in the woods, do not negatively affect deer, caribou, moose, etc. Studies have been done by major universities, and we can certainly provide you with complete copies of those studies, which are continually being updated.

Mr. Paul Forseth: On behalf of the committee, I'd love to receive that material. Thank you.

Mr. Edward Klim: I would be happy to send them to you.

The Chair: Thank you.

There's another committee waiting in the room. I understand Ms. Redman would like to make a brief statement.

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

I have a brief comment, because I know there are people watching this on television. When we talk about the offences and the punishment, they're laid out in the bills as upper limits. This will be dealt with in a court of law, and it would not be an automatic fine.

Notwithstanding your direction, Mr. Chair, I recognize we have no committee booked, I believe, for next Wednesday afternoon. If I were able to have consensus, could we consider having the Department of Justice at that time?

The Chair: If, after consultation with members, there is a consensus, we can do that. But I would still urge you to do that first. Thank you.

This was a very interesting morning, and on behalf of the members of the committee, I wish to thank you all for coming to Ottawa and bringing to our attention and our knowledge your particular understanding, your experience, and your wisdom. We thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.