[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, December 2, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon. This is a meeting that opens up, first of all, in welcomingMr. Haber from COSEWIC, and it is held as an informal meeting until one member of the opposition appears. However, in view of the fact that we have votes at 5:30 p.m., we don't want to keep our witnesses waiting. After Mr. Haber we have another witness. So we will start and take due note of what he says. We'll have a good round of questions, of course, and move on.
Mr. Haber, we welcome you. If you could bring us up to speed on your thoughts about the legislation, it would be very helpful.
Mr. Erich Haber (Chair, COSEWIC): Thank you. I did appear before the committee on October 31, but that was just to provide supplementary information at that time. I didn't have much time to go through the proposed legislation then.
I have had a bit of feedback from some former COSEWIC chairs, one chair in particular, and I've gone through the document myself. I've listed five points in the document I'm going to read. That's been translated for you. There is a supplementary in English that I've just put in the document I'm going to cover this morning, and that isn't translated. However, if need be, that can be done within a couple of days.
With your forbearance, I'll go through these. They're fairly succinct points. I'll read through here and you can interrupt and ask questions at any point.
The first point I would like to cover is the definition of ``wildlife species''. This, of course, is very critical to the whole bill. At present - and I'm just going to read part of it - the definition includes:
- a species, subspecies or geographically distinct population of animal, plant or....
As for the reasons for this change, the first reason is that the present definition omits the category of plant variety. COSEWIC has always designated varieties, and we have in fact two varieties that are listed on a national list of plants that are vulnerable. The term ``subspecies'' is not synonymous with ``variety'', so there's no confusion with that. We have species, we have subspecies, we have varieties. In fact, in plants we also have forms. We have designated, as I say, varieties. So it would seem this has been an inadvertent omission, at least for ``variety''. It should be there, because it is not covered.
The second reason - and it's perhaps even more important - is that COSEWIC designates as wildlife species at risk only those which are of national significance, including geographically distinct populations of national significance. The existing wording implies COSEWIC designates any geographically distinct population. This is not the case.
This change would then also reflect the national accord, where it is recognized that COSEWIC designates species at risk nationally. A detailed explanation of which populations are nationally significant is provided in the 1995 annual report of COSEWIC, and there it does clearly state we are dealing with nationally significant populations.
.1540
My second point deals with clause 15, which states that ``COSEWIC must meet at least once every six months.'' I feel some clarification should be required in this instance. It is not clear in the clause whether the intent is to designate status every six months. Presently, designation is made at the annual general meeting in April but there is a provision for status designation under exceptional circumstances. As well, in the French the verb tient should be changed to the expression of doit tenir to be equivalent to the English text.
My recommendation is that due to the heavy burden placed on the subcommittee chairs and to a lesser extent on subcommittee members, COSEWIC should designate status only once a year but meet twice a year to facilitate committee business.
A provision for designating status under exceptional circumstances is already proposed in the bill. The reason for this recommendation is that according to the national accord, COSEWIC will continue to designate all species of national significance, as we have been doing, including those not on federal lands.
Subcommittee members do virtually all of the work in preparing status reports for designation by COSEWIC. This is done almost exclusively on a volunteer basis. Presently this is already a substantial commitment, especially for subcommittee chairs. Subcommittee members are under pressure from their institutions to spend less time on COSEWIC activities and to concentrate on primary responsibilities at their institutions.
The work for subcommittee members will increase once the bill becomes law, particularly if the frequency of designation is increased. Adequate funding for subcommittee chairs or a letter of agreement with the parent organizations would encourage them to allow their staff to participate in COSEWIC.
It may seem more of a housekeeping matter to you that COSEWIC itself, once it's established in law, could deal with, but there is the fundamental point of importance here that the work in the actual subcommittees - and there are six of them that deal with birds, mammals, fish, plants and so on - done by the chairs and the other volunteer members is all voluntary and is at the grace of the institutions that provide the time of these people. Currently, under the pressure of getting more work done for their primary responsibilities - and often it is research at universities and museums - these people are under considerable pressure to spend less time on COSEWIC matters.
If we're going to be designating status twice a year, a lot more work will need to be done by these scientific and technical committees to make sure everything flows quickly and on time. So there should be some clarification with regard to the intent of how frequently COSEWIC is actually going to designate status in a year.
As I indicated in my opening portion, the English reads ``COSEWIC must meet'', whereas the French simply says ``meets''. So there is a difference in actual meaning in that regard.
My third point deals with clause 16. The first part says: ``COSEWIC may establish advisory and other subcommittees....'' I have some changes to propose in the wording: ``COSEWIC will establish specialist subcommittees for the preparation and scientific review of status reports on wildlife species considered to be at risk and may establish other advisory subcommittees to assist it in exercising or performing any of its powers or functions.''
The critical part here is I'm proposing that within legislation there be a specific statement that COSEWIC will establish specialist subcommittees for the preparation of scientific review of status reports. This change relates to the difficulties identified in clause 15 that I have just mentioned. The credibility of COSEWIC designations is based on the work done by botanists, zoologists and wildlife specialists who work on the subcommittees and review all reports. The chairs and members of these subcommittees are professionals from federal and provincial agencies and non-governmental organizations, especially museums and universities.
.1545
In a way, I'm reiterating the same point, but this is an extremely important one as far as I'm concerned. It is essential to create these subcommittees for the new COSEWIC to function effectively, especially in light of increased demands imposed by the bill. This inclusion of the establishment of the subcommittees in the bill I understand, and the intent is to have subcommittees of technical committees, but this is not specified within the bill. This is what I'm concerned about. Inclusion of the studies within the legislation reflects their importance. This change will indicate to participating organizations that the work done by their staff on COSEWIC is a valuable national contribution and an essential professional activity, something that is not presently recognized by these various institutions that provide the people who sit on the technical committees.
Point four deals with clause 27. It states presently:
- COSEWIC must review the designation and classification of each species at risk at least once
every 10 years,
The reasons for clarification: these reviews should be based on update reports, because the update reports provide the most comprehensive summary of recent data and because these reports are also reviewed by the scientific subcommittees. It is not clear, the way clause 27 is presently worded. It simply says ``must review''. Of course, a review could be any kind of review by a panel, by the maximum of nine COSEWIC members, but what I'm proposing here is that this review actually take the form of an update report, because the update reports go to the scientific committees, the technical committees, for proper scientific review. On that basis, status is then designated or status is upgraded or downgraded for a particular species.
My fifth point deals with two of the slight inaccuracies in the translations in the French that I've noted in a couple of the items. In view of the above-noted discrepancies between the English and the French texts with regard to the intent of the legislation, I recommend that the entire text of the bill be reviewed to ensure that no such discrepancies are present elsewhere, because there is a difference between ``must'' and just doing something. So the French and English must imply the same degree of force for what has to be done.
I do have in my English statement a supplementary comment that I would like to make. It deals with the name ``COSEWIC'', English and French names that are presently within Bill C-65. I question the suitability of referring to COSEWIC under different names in the English and French definitions within the bill. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has been known traditionally in French as le Comité sur le statut des espèces menacées de disparition au Canada. This is reasonably close to the English with espèces menacées de disparition essentially meaning endangered species, so the French does talk about endangered species as does the English.
The text in the bill maintained the English name in acronym but changed both the French name and acronym. The French title now refers to species at risk - that is, espèces en péril - but the English refers to endangered wildlife. These two concepts are not identical. I do agree, however, that the name of the committee and its activities is more correctly reflected in the French name.
On plant status reports recently sent out for review by the plant subcommittee, we have already begun to use the title, Status Report on Plants at Risk in Canada, since this more correctly reflects our activities. We do not evaluate only species that have been suggested to be endangered.
.1550
Here is my proposal: I propose that the French name and acronym be kept, but that the English name and acronym be changed to the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Canada. The acronym for that would be COSSARC.
This would correctly reflect the activities of the committee and would provide a parallel name to that proposed in the French language. This acronym would also parallel the Ontario analogue of the national committee. This provincial committee is called the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, COSSARO. Ontario is one of the four provinces that already has an endangered species act.
The removal of the word ``wildlife'' from the name would also eliminate confusion in the minds of some who may still think of wildlife in the context of the old wildlife policy previous to the changes effected in 1990, wherein wildlife meant only vertebrates, that is, birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. All organisms are now covered under the new wildlife policy of Canada.
A less suitable alternative - and I do provide you with an alternative here as well, but it's not something that I particularly favour - is to follow the lead of the World Conservation Union, which is still known under its old acronym of IUCN. That stands for its previous name, International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The old acronym for COSEWIC could still be used, but the title could be changed to Committee on the Status of Species At Risk in Canada.
The change to new, more suitable and comparable names for the committee, in both English and French, is highly appropriate in view of the new organizational structure of the committee and its official recognition under the proposed legislation.
Those were the points that I wished to make before the committee. I would be happy to answer questions.
The Chairman: Thank God you had a supplementary comment. Do you have any other supplementary comments, Mr. Haber?
Mr. Haber: Not that I have written out particularly. These are my main points right now.
The Chairman: The one you just made is of great importance. We have to understand it fully and deal with it.
I am sure that Madame Guay would like to start, followed by Mr. Forseth, followed byMr. Adams.
Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Ms Guay (Laurentides): Good afternoon, Mr. Haber. I would like you to give us some information on COSEWIC and the way it functions. You are its chairman, are you not?
[English]
Mr. Haber: Yes, I am.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: I would like to know how many people it is made up of, how you work with the sub-committees and if you have the necessary resources to execute the requirements of a bill such as the one being studied.
[English]
Mr. Haber: At present, COSEWIC is a national committee on which we have a variety of representatives. We have representatives from all of the wildlife departments from the provinces and territories. We have four federal representatives from four federal agencies, including the Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada, the Museum of Nature, and Fisheries. We also have three representatives from national environmental organizations, the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
At our annual meeting, we do have invited guests from time to time, but these representatives are the main voting members, together with the subcommittee chairs. We have six subcommittees that I have outlined, which deal with birds, fish and marine mammals - which I can explain in a moment - and reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. The work of the subcommittee on invertebrates is restricted in the sense that it deals only with molluscs and clams, for instance, and with high-profile species such as the butterflies and the moths. We also have a plants committee whose work actually encompasses flowering plants and vascular plants, and mosses and lichens within the last year or so.
.1555
I've alluded to this in two points in my statement in terms of the work done by the subcommittees. The chairs of the subcommittees are involved in making sure the subcommittees have a working list of candidate species for report preparation, species that should be considered for status designation. The chairs and co-chairs of these subcommittees work to make sure there is a list of species to be treated. And as far as these various professional people are concerned, these are the species most at risk in Canada.
The chairs, with the help of the subcommittee members, find authors for those specific high-profile species designated for that year - one or more - and a letter of agreement is used. We used to have contracts that were signed with the authors. The funding has occurred through various means.
The World Wildlife Fund was the main agency that handled the funding on behalf of COSEWIC, but the Canadian Wildlife Service has always provided the secretariat and a considerable amount of money to support the secretariat in all the work it does. They have also provided in the order of $10,000 for funding of status reports. The World Wildlife Fund, through its funding abilities, has provided additional matching funding in order to allow us to do a reasonable number of reports per year.
Subsequent to the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Wildlife Federation was involved in facilitating the handling of contracts and funding and provides additional funds in support of status report preparation.
Of late, because of changes in both of these organizations, the Canadian Wildlife Service has taken over the funding, but we are also still trying to get matching funding from other organizations.
The important thing about the two points I've made in my statements is that virtually all of the work.... Beyond the important work that the actual author or authors of the report does on the status report.... Finding that person and reviewing that report in a critical and scientific way is done by the chair, the co-chairs and the members of that committee. The scientific credibility of what goes into that report rests with that committee. And everybody on that committee - except me in the last couple of years because the Museum of Nature has been providing contracts for me to represent them on COSEWIC - basically works as a volunteer, with the various institutions providing for their time and providing some funding for photocopying, long-distance calls and all the rest of it, so the subcommittees can operate.
A lot of work is done by the specialist groups. And now that we have a bill before us whereby COSEWIC will become a legal entity - and possibly designation of status may even occur twice a year, it's not clear - the pressure on those people providing volunteer services is going to increase dramatically. We have been losing people because of the fact that they have pressure within their institutions. They have dropped out or they cannot do as much work.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: In your comments regarding clause 15, in the paragraph explaining your reason for the recommendation, you say:
- According the National Accord, COSEWIC will continue to designate all species of national
significance, including those not on federal lands.
An agreement was signed last year in Charlottetown by the federal minister and the provinces. There was agreement that in the application of laws, both levels of government would do their utmost to avoid overlap and duplication. I would invite you to elaborate on that.
.1600
[English]
Mr. Haber: Do I understand correctly it's this problem of overlap in how the two pieces of legislation will work?
This gets into an area that is a bit more difficult and awkward for me, just in expressing that legal aspect. The legislation is clear that there is a kind of joint responsibility. You understand that.
You've indicated there is legislation in some provinces. Ontario, for instance, has had legislation for some time. I am presuming that because of the national accord there will have to be some changes to make the compatibility work out between the way a province acts in designating and how this proposed new federal act will work. Through this bill we certainly have the ability to deal with species that are not on federal lands, because....
I'm getting myself into a tongue-tied state here. I'm finding it difficult to answer your question. Perhaps that is an area that will be a bit easier for the proponents of the legislation who have worked in detail on putting the bill together. I'm sorry. I find that difficult.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: It is not a matter of being against or not. It is simply a matter of knowing how both will be managed. Once the act is in force, means will have to be found to manage these situations. We must avoid having species endangered because there is no agreement in the legal domain. If the bill we are studying is passed, it should have some flexibility vis-à-vis acts that are already in place and in force.
[English]
The Chairman: A brief answer, please.
Mr. Haber: Again, I'm not sure I can answer that particular comment specifically. At this point my understanding of that...not having been involved in the actual drafting of the legislation, I can't give you a detailed answer there. I'm sorry.
The Chairman: That's good enough.
Mr. Forseth, please.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you.
Do you really see COSEWIC fundamentally changing its operation, specifically at the ground level, in the sources of its information? You have some experience of working with the Ontario legislation and the sources of information about where, say, a bird is seen, whether it has a nest in an area, what its fly zone is, and coming to some conclusions. Isn't there a bird called the loggerhead shrike or something like that? It's in a few places in Ontario, but it's designated as endangered or whatever. Maybe you could describe how you get the actual field information and then how that is rolled up eventually as it goes through to the upper layers.
Mr. Haber: The field information in fact is compiled by the author or authors of the status report. What these authors do is this. With the vertebrates, and animals in particular, they will go to whatever and all means of bibliographic references and papers that are available. They will contact the wildlife ministries to get the information they have available. That is always provided to the authors. We've rarely had any problem in this regard. So the author is able to get whatever up-to-date information is available. For birds this also comes from Christmas bird counts and from nesting records - a whole range of activities that are published in various journals.
The authors of reports compile all that information in a specific format that deals with the habitat, the population numbers and sizes and declines and so on, the threats that are present and evident or implied threats that might be present. These are some of the particularly critical aspects that are required in a status report; that is, any information on the changes in the numbers of populations or their sizes and threats to the populations. We require these particular items in the status reports in order to come to any firm decision on whether we can designate status for particular species. We have to feel there is adequate scientific information.
.1605
Mr. Forseth: As you've described that, do you see in the new designation of COSEWIC that any of what you've described in a general sense is going to change, or is somewhat the same kind of data collection going to occur?
Mr. Haber: It is going to be exactly the same, and it will be vetted even more intensely, I would think, because of the legal actions that will follow.
Mr. Forseth: Now I'll take you back to the operation of the Ontario act. You mentioned that well-meaning citizens go out and do the Christmas inventory of what birds they see. Is it not true that COSEWIC relies heavily on little forums where individual citizens, bird watchers' clubs and so on, go out and do sightings? I could characterize it by saying a lot of the data wrapped up and eventually presented as very scientific could be done by a 12-year-old child who believes what is sitting on a barn or on a twig.... They are not ornithologists at all. They are well-meaning bird watchers' clubs. They send in their forms, and eventually this is compiled and maps are produced. There is really no outside method of verifying or challenging whether something is seen or not seen, and really a lot of the data are very suspect for their veracity.
Mr. Haber: No, I must disagree quite strongly with that statement. The experience of people who have gone on these various bird counts is that these are individuals who know what they're talking about. The organizers of these particular counts or surveys will take into account who it is they are getting information from, and they are relying on capable individuals.
That information is summarized by highly trained people who can appreciate whether a particular record is true or not. There is a means of checking with other people. ``Have you seen this? Is this true?''
There are also major documents put together, such as the the bird atlas for Ontario and various other atlases, where they have mapped the occurrences of these species. These are professional people, working at ministry offices, who are in fact also looking at this kind of data to ensure these data are robust and they are not getting spurious information.
This is not to say - you have a valid point - that here and there you are not going to get something that seems a bit odd. But we have professional people who are looking at the data and checking to see if this could in fact be an unusual record. Then that is checked further by knowledgeable people to see whether there is any truth to this particular bird or animal being seen in that particular area.
Mr. Forseth: So you actually have scientists who will go out and tramp the ground and find the nest?
Mr. Haber: There are professional people - wildlife people, biologists - in all the ministries whose job is to ensure that information in the data they gather for important species particularly, such as those considered to be at risk, is valid. We have conservation data centres now in several provinces whose job is to make sure they know where the species at risk are located and to have databases pertaining to those and the habitats they occur in.
Mr. Forseth: I'm deeply concerned, because I've had presentations challenging the way the current Ontario act operates, on the veracity of its data. You've said to me now at the committee you don't see any particular change or upgrading of the operation for the sources of data going into the new situation. With the added power COSEWIC is going to have, I'm wondering where the balance is, such that landowners or anyone else can challenge what is being said about what may or may not be on their land. It seems to be a tremendous power you grant. Perhaps volunteers, well-meaning individuals...or even the possibility of someone who wants to join a club and particularly screw up the subdivision of some adjacent property because they will use the proposed act for a perverse purpose. And there's no way of coming back to this roll-up process of forms and collecting and challenging that.
.1610
I'm asking you to perhaps look at that issue, because this is going to be an ongoing issue in the future to increasingly look at how the data is collected. As you know, you've talked about producing an atlas. I know how long it takes to produce an atlas. From the original raw data that's collected, to get an atlas falling out of the printer at the other end is basically a two-year process.
This whole area of how good the original field material is, especially in the area of birds, is really a serious question. I'm concerned that if there's no improvement from what we have now in the operation of Ontario, the whole intent of what we're doing here is going to be challenged.
Mr. Haber: I'm not as pessimistic as you seem to be in that regard, because I'm very confident in dealing with these various chairs of the subcommittees and the manner in which they deal with their subcommittee members, also specialists, who are in contact with the various groups that provide information that there is a lot of strength in the data that's presented.
You have dealt with vertebrate birds in particular. I should like to point out as well to the committee, because plants are so often forgotten in this whole discussion of wildlife, that with regard to status reports on plants we have required, ever since we began producing status reports on plants, the only way we can produce a status report is to have the author of that report go into the field and verify as many of the localities as possible. Otherwise, we would have no information on threats, we would have no information on population sizes. So for plants in particular, the authors are required to specifically search out the sites and determine population levels and so on, and these are skilled, capable persons.
Mr. Forseth: But I take it the same doesn't apply to birds.
Mr. Haber: In fact, for most of the vertebrate groups there is reliance on published information, the scientists who are involved in the committees for their evaluation, and their research quite often on certain specific species at risk. So there's a broad range of information. It does not simply come from the low echelon of birders, for instance, that you have alluded to. There is much more robust information that actually comes from the wildlife ministries. There is census data, the various roll-ups of information on population changes that is done by ministries in various provinces.
Mr. Forseth: I'll end with this comment. Basically, what you're presenting is a system where somebody in the field tells somebody else. They fill out a form, which is rolled up, and it tells something else, which tells somebody else all the way up. As it goes up the scale it increasingly develops the aura of scientific truth because the credentials of the person who's relaying it are attached to the material, and yet the original data may be nothing more than a piece of paper. I'm suggesting to you that if we're not going to get into a new situation that's any better than we have now, we're in for a lot of difficulty.
Mr. Haber: I must again say that I am not as suspicious as you are of the validity of the information. We have been quite pleased with the type of information we have. In fact, when we do not have adequate information - and that has occurred - we have designated species as indeterminate, because we have found that in spite of the fact that we have had a competent person gather information, we felt there was not enough information for that particular organism to designate status at that point in time.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you. Might I add, Mr. Haber, that Mr. Forseth is not alone amongst parliamentarians with that impression.
Mr. Adams, please.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Haber, perhaps I could begin by commenting on Mr. Forseth's line of questioning, particularly with respect to the bird count and its nature and the assumption, because there are some mistakes made by observers on the ground, that the whole system collapses.
The truth is quite the reverse. Let us imagine that we had, say, 200 absolutely perfectly trained bird specialists who could proceed around the country and check what birds were there and verify what they were, and let's assume they made no mistakes. You have to realize in terms of covering a country like Canada...and let's assume they work 365 days a year and could visit a different site every year. The sample would be pathetic, because you'd have an identified species here on a certain date which, by the way, might fly off or be somewhere else. So to cover the whole of Canada the whole year, 200 perfectly trained people would provide you with a very, very inadequate database. You'd simply not have the coverage, either the time or the space coverage. The thing these seasonal bird counts do is provide a very large base.
.1615
Now, Mr. Forseth is right, I'm sure there are people who make mistakes. But the way these pieces of paper you describe go is this. First of all, they are checked somewhat at the local level. In some cases, if it's a very common species, there's not much need to check, because if people generally know there are sparrows in a certain area at that certain time of year, people don't worry too much. But if someone has seen an ostrich flying over on Christmas Day, or better still, New Year's Eve - that might be the time - at the local level, it would be suspect. People would say, let's go check if that ostrich really was flying. There's that type of correction.
But then - and there's a humourous element to this, I suppose - over the years of this count, quality control goes in as the paper goes up. The quality control is not based on the qualification of the birders. It's based on prior knowledge of the season and the place and so on. It goes up and up, and if there are things that jar the attention of the system - we're not talking about individuals - then people will check and ask, is it really right that this species was there at that time, and so on. Quality control is now - and it has been done over the years - built in, and a lot of it is automatic. Ostriches should not be there at that time of the year, so we'll look at it and we'll see if that's okay; but we'll be checking.
So I would argue that the bird counts at the moment, until we get to the time when there's a satellite that can identify every bird we want, are the only way we can go to get a basically sound statistical sample.
There's been a lot of discussion about COSEWIC and this legislation. One of the points that have been put is that under the new regime decisions will become more political and less scientific. By the way, we've heard arguments in favour of that, because at some point I myself have argued, as Mr. Forseth does, that the scientists can make mistakes as much as anyone else. But Mr. Haber, what are your thoughts about the new process and how COSEWIC will fit into it and the role of politicians, the role of the cabinet in particular, in making final decisions? Is it your sense that it is becoming, let's say, more political? That would be one? Then is that a bad thing?
Mr. Haber: COSEWIC has always maintained that it is basically a scientific authority that works on the best information available. We look at the information and we designate status. We have people from all provinces and from various organizations. They may have slightly different agendas with their provinces, different ideas about things, but when they come to COSEWIC for designating status.... We've had very little problem with people actually looking very objectively at the information. COSEWIC tries to designate basically on the information that's really there. This has worked very well.
I do have one concern that relates to what you're indicating. That is, we now will have a committee of up to nine members who will decide on the actual status for particular species. We have a status report that will be reviewed by a subcommittee, and then the recommendation will be made to this panel of up to nine people. They are all to be trained, specialized in various facets of biology and so on. That's recognized.
It is not clear from the layout of the legislation at present whether or not we would have, for instance, the subcommittee chairs and co-chairs present to help explain the fine points, the nuances of the problems with a particular species. At present at the annual meeting we have all the representatives from the various provinces and territories, the environmental organizations, the federal organizations. We discuss potential problems. The chairs provide additional insights to understanding the situation of that species. That may not be evident in the report.
I often do that with some aspects of the reproduction of the species. Does it propagate itself not just sexually but through vegetative means? That means something. It's able to maintain itself in that way. At present we have this broad discussion that goes on at the annual meeting with all the people involved, and there is often quite a give and take and a change in understanding of some of the members.
.1620
You must understand that each of the members provides a straw ballot. They read the reports back home and send in their comments and recommendation for status. It may be the same as that recommended by the subcommittee and the author, and it may not be. The author may recommend a certain status and the subcommittee may change that status, and often has done so.
At the final vote, COSEWIC as a total body may change that recommendation to what it feels is a more appropriate status based on the consensus of a wide range of people there. There may have been discussions guided by the chair of the committee for that particular species to give a particular viewpoint and interpretation to help in understanding the subtleties of the particular problems with that species. That may happen if the process is outlined whereby the nine-member panel, for instance, may also bring in the chairs of the committees to brief it with regard to the status of that species and have some discussions with regard to status.
If that were the case, then it would be somewhat similar to what we have now in that we are able to influence, in an appropriate way, the understanding of the science of that particular species for those people who are going to make the decisions. In this new format we will have only nine people ostensibly who will make the decision on what the final status will be as far as COSEWIC is concerned, and then that will go to another level.
Mr. Adams: Does that concern you?
Mr. Haber: I have the particular concern that I would like the subcommittee chairs to be able to have these discussions with that panel before they designate the final status. I have not made that a special point here, but it is certainly of some concern to me.
Mr. Adams: That's fine with me. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: I have a couple of questions from here.
Mr. Haber, I'm glad you brought forward an amplified definition of wildlife. The question now is are you satisfied with the definition of critical habitat?
Mr. Haber: There are two aspects of critical habitat. There is one as it relates to the recovery process, where a recovery plan has to be produced. The status report will have to indicate what the critical habitat is. In fact, COSEWIC presently does not have a clear designation of what a critical habitat is. Within the legislation there is one specific aspect that deals with the protection of the nest or den of a particular species. My understanding is it's specifically limited to that particular area.
Within the recovery plans, the critical habitat for the species would be indicated. That is a much broader issue that deals with the whole life support system required and the extent of the habitat required. That presently is not clear because there is no definition of critical habitat in that sense.
The Chairman: Yes, so could you please try to answer my question?
If you read the definition of critical habitat on page 2 of the proposed act, are you satisfied with it? Is it precise enough, comprehensive enough and wide enough? Will it serve the purpose or is it too vague to be used properly and adequately for the overall purpose of the bill?
Mr. Haber: Pardon me just for a moment, I'm looking at clause 24.
The Chairman: To me it is too vague because it just repeats the word ``critical'' in attempting to define what critical habitat is. It's not really a very helpful definition.
Mr. Haber: I agree with you on that particular point. You cannot define one word using the same word.
The Chairman: What is ``critical''?
Mr. Haber: I can talk in general without giving you a specific definition as such. The critical habitat is one that allows a large enough area for the particular animal, for instance, to obtain the food it requires. It is a very specialized study that is required for every species. It varies with the size of the particular animal and it depends on the particular plant.
.1625
The Chairman: Let me ask you this, then: on line 28, instead of ``critical'', would you find it an improvement to have ``essential'' or ``vital'' or some other adjective?
Mr. Haber: I would think that ``vital'' or ``essential'' would better reflect that definition. It still is open-ended, because it does not give you the full interpretation of what critical is, but it certainly would be an improvement in that it does not seem to have a circularity in reasoning by using the same word within the definition. I agree with you in that regard.
But what the critical or essential aspect is, of course, is not stated here. It depends on the particular organism. You cannot make a blanket statement, so there has to be a certain openness to that whole question, except that I understand your point that you do not define critical by using the word ``critical''.
The Chairman: Since time does not permit us to go into greater depth on this particular item, would you undertake to look at the U.S. indigenous species act's definition of critical habitat and perhaps let the members of this committee have the benefit of your comments as to whether it would be an improvement, or any other comment you wish to make on how to improve this definition? Would that be possible?
Mr. Haber: Yes.
The Chairman: The next question has to do with re-examinations in the very interesting paper you provide in the briefing book for us. There are seven delistings under the record of status re-examinations. Now, there may be a variety of reasons for that, but could you tell us, for our own understanding, what happens when a decision to delist is made?
Mr. Haber: All of our delistings, as far as I know, are always done on the basis of an update status report. What that update report does is to look at the most up-to-date information available on population numbers, changes and threats with regard to a particular species. In order to downlist a species or remove it to a lower category or completely remove it from the Canadian species at risk list, you would have to see that there's a substantial increase in the populations and that they are scattered about.
As you can appreciate, sometimes there is only a particular small area where certain kinds of habitat will support a particular species at risk. That is a particular dilemma if you can only have one or two areas spatially close together. You can increase the numbers of species there and that is a positive sign. But even better than that is if we have a number of different sites spatially or geographically quite separated and the populations within those separated areas increase in numbers and in size, and perhaps the threats, because there is provincial legislation or some other legislation that protects the species now that it's been listed.... We can see that there's less risk because the numbers are higher; there's less chance that some quirk in nature or some anthropogenic, man-induced accident can cause a drastic effect on that particular species.
So if you have large enough numbers within the population and many separate populations, you are then decreasing the risk for a particular species. That's what we look for in these update status reports.
To increase the listing, we have to be able to demonstrate and see in the report that the sizes of the populations have decreased substantially. There may have been a loss of certain sites where the particular animal or plant occurred. On that basis, we assess how critical is it now, does it go from threatened to endangered; or in some instances we have listed some species originally, in this case, as extirpated. They no longer occur.
The Chairman: Your knowledge is on which basis here?
Mr. Haber: That can vary, because the last designation may have been made ten years ago, or the original designation may have been made five years ago. So it is whatever the current documentation provides us with, and usually with something very critical it is quite recent, more than likely the last year. Especially for some of these vertebrates that are very well known, their populations are tracked. A close eye is kept on these by the various management boards.
.1630
The Chairman: Your last official observation is of extreme importance to determine how to assess the condition of that species.
Mr. Haber: Perhaps I'm missing a fine point you're trying to get at.
The Chairman: It's not really fine.
Mr. Haber: It has to be as recent as possible. I understand that.
The Chairman: No, whatever is your last designation, whether it is young or old or very old, it is of enormous importance for you to determine whether a species should be uplisted, downlisted, or delisted. Your last observation in the field is of extreme importance in order to determine which way to go.
Mr. Haber: Yes, that's correct.
The Chairman: And preceding ones as well, in order to establish a pattern?
Mr. Haber: In the first designation you may have had information that goes back to the fur trade - the records of how many pelts were available and the decrease in numbers of animals taken and so on. The first designation may have been based on a long history of information, including information as recent as possible, and we hope in that case within the last few years.
The Chairman: I was thinking mainly of molluscs and lichens and mosses and the like. I wasn't thinking of vertebrates. But your answer is fine.
Finally, we move to clause 30, which a number of witnesses have raised as being weak. There is criticism of that clause because the final decision on wildlife species at risk is to be made by Governor in Council and not by COSEWIC. The feeling is - and I'm sure you're familiar with this type of comment - that COSEWIC, being at arm's length from political pressures, ought to have the final word and there ought not to be beyond COSEWIC another jurisdiction, a political jurisdiction, to modify COSEWIC's recommendations. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Haber: I would agree with that. This is how COSEWIC has always operated.
The Chairman: You would agree with what?
Mr. Haber: I agree there should be an objective way COSEWIC can designate. If COSEWIC could just designate the species, that's what I would like to see myself.
The Chairman: But clause 30 does not read that way.
Mr. Haber: I have not been involved in drafting that.
The Chairman: If you were involved in drafting it, what would be your recommendations?
Mr. Haber: This is what I'm saying. If I had my druthers, I would like to maintain the status quo; that is, we have a national group of representatives that designates status. As I've explained, within that process we have this give and take. There's a complete understanding, a consensus, at the annual meeting as to what the status is. Then that status is designated on behalf of all parties.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Haber.
Can we have a quick second round before we go to the next witness, if there is any interest? Mr. Forseth, please.
Mr. Forseth: Maybe we can pursue these things in my office or at some other time, because it's the whole issue. Certainly we're concerned about what is being decided by COSEWIC, but also the public has a deep concern about who is doing the deciding.
You talked a little about the various sources of funding for COSEWIC in the past. I'm also wondering if the money comes and then you buy your vote at the table, organizations are naturally going to pursue their own particular agenda. How do you see funding changes perhaps changing the direction of COSEWIC?
Mr. Haber: I must admit that fine point has never come up in our meetings. If a provincial agency has provided funding in support of a particular species either entirely or in part, this has never been a point of contention with regard to the status we arrive at.
.1635
As I say, there is an open and frank discussion and consensus is reached. There is no overriding of one individual from a particular province whose viewpoint takes precedence.
Mr. Forseth: Who decides who gets on all these committees?
Mr. Haber: Do you mean the scientific and technical committees?
Mr. Forseth: I mean those committees and the central committee.
Mr. Haber: The main representatives are the wildlife ministers and their representatives. Their representatives from every province and territory, for instance, are presently on COSEWIC. It is decided by the wildlife ministers themselves which representatives will appear. Usually they are biologists or professionals within the ministries who are specialists in some aspect of biology who actually attend the meetings representing those ministries.
Mr. Forseth: In the operation of the new act, to whom do you see COSEWIC being accountable in the long run, or from what source will COSEWIC be held in account to test the validity of its designations? It's an issue of balance. Again, it's this issue that the public's concerned about what they're going to decide and who will be doing the deciding. It's a deep concern in any administrative tribunal or the Supreme Court or whatever, as to where a person is coming from.
You talked about people at the table who have contributed money to the ongoing operation of COSEWIC, so obviously they have an agenda. If that's the way it goes, then what about the Cattlemen's Association or others having their scientific representatives? They'll contribute money and influence which way COSEWIC is going.
I want to get back to this issue. In the operation of the act, as you see it in the future, who will be watching over the shoulders of COSEWIC for the public interest?
Mr. Haber: That's a very good point to make.
Mr. Forseth: The point is, I don't see it anywhere in the bill. I make the analogy that it's something like getting decrees out of the Vatican, where these people go behind closed doors and they have high and lofty discussions and eventually come outside and make their decrees. They are the sole experts and purveyors of knowledge. They are going to tell us what is appropriate.
Is there any plan to make the proceedings of COSEWIC open and accountable rather than just having all this data wrapped up with some organization that eventually comes out and makes an announcement that no one can check?
Mr. Haber: No, but the process is open. Anyone can ask for a species to be looked at, for instance. If someone has a particular concern about a species that has been designated, he or she can ask to be a visitor to see what is going on. The meetings are not in camera. We have visitors. We have a broad range of people who attend. It's just a question of their asking specifically to attend if they have some expertise that is particularly valid to the point of designating status.
On your original question of where the main COSEWIC members, for instance, are going to come from, the bill does state, in a very general sense only, that specialists with these various kinds of backgrounds - scientific in various fields, wildlife specialists - are to be chosen. There is no specification as to where they might come from. There is meant to be a broad representation and that is what we do within a subcommittee, for instance.
I have had nine people - I think maybe only seven now - within my particular subcommittee and they're from right across Canada. Their expertise, which may be stronger, for instance, in the prairies for a particular group, is brought to bear on the decision-making within the review of that species.
So within our subcommittees we have a broad range of individuals with these skills who review these reports. They are not bought by anyone. These are specialists at museums and universities, as well as wildlife ministries and so on, or from environmental agencies.
The Chairman: The way clause 30 is written now provides for a considerable amount of accountability - going back to an earlier comment - because it is the political arm that becomes accountable. So the overseers of what is being decided are ultimately the electors of Canada.
.1640
Mr. Forseth: I understand that all the internal operations of COSEWIC can't be outlined in the designation of a federal statute, but do you have a set of protocols and a manual of operation that's available to the public? Do you conduct your routine business according to a set procedure that has checks and balances and so on? And would that be available for public examination?
Mr. Haber: Yes, exactly. We have the COSEWIC organization and procedures manual. I have a draft here from 1994, for instance. It's the latest one. We have had a manual for a long time and it has been revised as we have gone along. There are specific rules with regard to quorum and so on.
Mr. Forseth: Okay. I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I'm being particularly adversarial, but you understand that we're going into a new situation of adding additional legal power to a body that.... Increasingly, there are going to be people out there in the community who ask the same kinds of questions that I'm asking now, and COSEWIC's going to be challenged and all the rest of it. It's better to get into this now and fully explore it rather than come back to it later. There will be challenges and so on, not only on the issue of what is decided but on who is doing the deciding and that whole issue. It needs to be addressed and clearly spelled out.
Mr. Haber: Yes.
The Chairman: Subclause 30(1) on page 13 reads like this:
- The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make regulations
establishing and amending the List of Wildlife Species at Risk based on COSEWIC's
designations and classifications of wildlife species.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, and that may look good on paper, but as we know, it's the same as overseeing government or whatever. You might say that the underlings are providing all the information and the data. Where else is government going to go for information other than COSEWIC? It's the old argument -
The Chairman: Possibly the next election. That's where it will go.
Mr. Forseth: Yes. But I'm just raising the general issue. It's the general principle in the public's mind. Those who in the future may not be happy with certain designations because it really affects their livelihoods and the investments they've made and so on.... A particular decision will be made by COSEWIC, the government will follow it, and there'll be significant financial losses or changes in investment plans because of it, so they're going to challenge not only what is being decided but who is doing the deciding. I think we need to address this now rather than later.
The Chairman: Do you have any final comments?
Mr. Haber: At present we have a series of specialists, all kinds of people who...I'm just reiterating.... They're across the country and they're all involved in providing an opinion as to the status, and it varies considerably. But -
The Chairman: In other words, you're satisfied with the network you have across the country.
Mr. Haber: Yes, because these are all very skilled, professional people who do that initial evaluation of status.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.
Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you very much for coming and for your presentation, which was extremely helpful.
Mr. Haber: Thank you.
The Chairman: The next witness is from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Dr. Quinney, please.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I have a point of information, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that there is no vote this evening. We did it at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, it's all done.
The Chairman: I see.
Mr. Knutson: When the 12:30 p.m. vote was moved to 1:30 p.m., the 5:30 p.m. vote was also moved to 1:30 p.m.
The Chairman: Fine. So it was originally intended at 6:30 p.m., and they're not.... Thank you.
Dr. Quinney, would you like to take the floor? You have appeared before this committee, so you're at home, I hope.
Dr. Terry Quinney (Provincial Coordinator of Fish and Wilderness Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Inc.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the invitation to be here this afternoon to address your committee.
.1645
I think it's worth prefacing the comments of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters on this Canada Endangered Species Protection Act by initially describing just a few of our accomplishments as an organization in wildlife recovery, because we believe it shows what can be done by involving the public and governments voluntarily in wildlife conservation without new legislation, bureaucracies, and litigation. The OFAH is proud to support the restoration of species such as wild turkeys, trumpeter swans, elk, the endangered northern bobwhite quail, aurora trout, and financially support research and conservation of many other species of fish and wildlife.
Let me give you an example. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has helped successfully restore the once extirpated wild turkey to the province of Ontario, and without the benefit of any endangered designation. Wild turkeys have been successfully restored to our province after a 100-year absence. Our organization, in cooperation with governments and private landowners, worked together to bring about this successful recovery. The population now stands at over 15,000 only 12 years after it began.
We have to wonder, however, what would have happened if wild turkeys had been listed as an endangered species before they were restored. If wild turkeys had been classified as endangered then, would they be present in Ontario today? Would landowners, for example, fearing the regulatory implications of hosting an endangered species, have supported the wild turkey program? Would members of the public, especially hunters, have donated so generously to fund this project, or would they have looked to governments to do that - governments that tell us they cannot afford more money for wildlife?
The OFAH promotes wildlife and habitat protection and enhancement through many avenues. These include forest management planning, environmental assessments, land use planning exercises, exotic species awareness, and so on. Our focus, then, is to maintain biological diversity by keeping wildlife populations off endangered species lists.
So endangered species legislation is important, but it's not necessarily the best way to protect or enhance Canada's biodiversity. Strong government support for wildlife programs that encourage public involvement, conservation education, and enforcement of existing laws accomplish a great deal in keeping wildlife off endangered species lists.
As a conservation organization in a province that has long-standing endangered species legislation and relatively few federal lands, the OFAH is concerned that the new federal endangered species legislation may be an unnecessary duplication and may cause conflicts in Ontario. That situation might be very different elsewhere in Canada. Where provincial and territorial legislation is lacking, appropriate federal legislation could provide the impetus for new federal-provincial partnerships in endangered species protection and that would be quite positive.
I would like now to address several specific concerns and support we are addressing with elements of this legislation. For example, we support the establishment, membership, and role of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council as outlined in Bill C-65. We also support the role and responsibilities of COSEWIC as an advisory body accountable to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council; in other words, those ministers described. We agree with the intent of this legislation to protect the habitat of endangered species on federal land, but we urge this standing committee to give special weight to the advice of the territorial governments and their citizens in this regard, because of course this is where over 90% of federal lands exist.
.1650
We would like to express concerns about the potential for duplication and possible conflict between federal and provincial responsibilities involving provincial wildlife.
Let me give you an example. The native Ontario bird, the northern bobwhite quail, is under provincial jurisdiction. It would become a federal responsibility on federal lands under subclause 3(2) of the new legislation, because COSEWIC has already listed it. A recovery plan would necessarily follow, approved by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. That could be beneficial if it included provincial interests and partners. Presumably, provincial membership on the proposed Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council would ensure that a broader landscape approach was adopted that involved the federal government as one of the key partners in the recovery.
In any event, we're concerned that the very designation of this provincial bird as endangered under COSEWIC can actually do more harm than good when the vast majority of its Canadian range and habitat exists on private lands. The effect of the COSEWIC designation may actually become a disincentive for private landowner involvement in wildlife population and habitat restoration, due to the fact that landowners will be uncertain about the full implications of hosting, so to speak, an endangered species on their property. In such cases, then, this legislation could effectively win the battle to protect individual birds on federal lands but lose the war for recovery of the species on greater time and spatial scales.
There should be more specific provisions in the legislation that, in our opinion, would require the responsible minister to have provincial approval for any recovery plan or emergency action taken through this legislation, especially for those species that also occupy provincial and private lands.
Clause 36 of the bill is not clear to us. What exactly would be exempt from recovery plan regulations for the purpose of ``protection of national security, safety or health, including animal and plant health''?
With reference to clause 36, we are also concerned that too much final interpretation could be left to the courts and not by wildlife professionals.
The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters supports the elements of this legislation that would permit the minister to enter into management agreements with other governments, organizations and individuals for the purpose of the protection and recovery of endangered species. Here I'm referring specifically to clauses 7 and 8.
We know there has been considerable apprehension on the part of landowning Canadians in anticipation of this endangered species legislation. The reason is that private landowners are concerned that they will have to bear the financial cost of endangered species protection on or near their land. This is a very important concern, and we want to stress that successful wildlife recovery projects involve landowners participating voluntarily, not participating solely as a result of a legislative hammer, that is, regulations.
As written, Bill C-65 does not specify that the minister will compensate parties who agree to forfeit production or income as part of habitat management agreements. We feel this is a clear deficiency in the legislation.
The number of landowners who may be directly negatively affected by these federal endangered species regulations or prohibitions must be small. However, we anticipate opposition to the legislation from the landowning public as a matter of principle. Landowners believe that no individual should have to bear the whole cost of society's responsibility to protect the species. We agree with that. The solution, then, would be a clear compensation clause to be included in subclause 8(2).
.1655
Please keep in mind that without the support of private landowners, especially in southern Canada, Canada won't be able to maintain its biological diversity. Federal endangered species legislation will harm, not help, wildlife if the interests of private landowners aren't accommodated.
The OFAH supports the open process of listing species as outlined in the bill, and making the decision-makers accountable to the public through this legislation. Providing the documentation for listing and recovery planning on a public registry, as a requirement of the bill, is also a positive step.
If this legislation did little more than what I've just described, including clarifying roles for COSEWIC; establishing a Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council to bring provincial ministers together on the issue; providing a model for provincial endangered species protection and recovery planning; and offering a template for partnerships between the federal government, provinces, organizations and individuals, then the legislation could accomplish a great deal at low cost.
We're not convinced, however, that the legislation as drafted will do much additional good for endangered species protection because of excessive new bureaucracy that will be required to administer all the requirements of the legislation. In our written submission to you we have used clause 56 as an example of what may be too bureaucratic and costly to be considered efficient and effective in this new legislation.
Besides those concerns of a costly new bureaucracy, our concerns are accentuated by the knowledge that no new funding for the proposed process and the subsequent bureaucracy will be forthcoming. It will have to consume the already limited resources that are currently devoted to existing wildlife conservation and environmental protection programs within Environment Canada. We sincerely believe the existing environmental protection programs of Environment Canada are already grossly underfunded. So without denying the important role of endangered species protection legislation, it must not displace or detract from existing wildlife and environmental protection programs that today prevent species from becoming endangered.
The ideal is to delist all endangered species in Canada. That will be accomplished as much by keeping species off the COSEWIC lists, using proactive wildlife management, habitat programs, conservation education and partnerships, as it will through what could be perceived as reactive endangered species legislation.
We'd ask this committee to please not lose sight of the fact that Canada's record of endangered species protection is actually quite good, not because of endangered species legislation but because Canadians care about our public wildlife heritage and because we have advanced provincial and federal wildlife programs that sustain fish and wildlife and habitats and a healthy environment generally. This has kept many species off endangered species lists. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Unfortunately, this government's track record on preventive wildlife conservation leaves much to be desired. For example, before he was elected, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his party promised to conduct a full environmental assessment of the deer farming industry. This is an industry based on the importation, rearing and attempted domestication of non-native wildlife species.
.1700
The deer farming industry is a continuous threat to our native wildlife and their habitats because of such things as disease, exotic parasites, habitat displacement and genetic pollution. An environmental assessment of this wildlife industry is a common-sense preventive wildlife conservation measure. But it has never been done, even though much wildlife is at stake. Promises have been made but not kept.
Unless this government will commit to new additional funding to pay for costs of administering activities required by this legislation - that is, unless the legislation enhances existing federal wildlife and habitat programs - the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters will continue to have serious concerns regarding its effectiveness.
If I may summarize, the necessity of endangered species legislation is an admission of society's failure to protect one of Canada's most precious public assets. This asset is our wildlife. The recognition of our failure could result in a renewed effort to achieve our collective goal of keeping species off endangered species lists. The most important role the Government of Canada can play in contributing to this goal is to provide the necessary funding leadership for programs aimed toward healthy wildlife and habitats.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Quinney. Ms Guay, please.
Ms Guay: I put this question earlier to the Chair of COSEWIC and he had difficulty providing an answer. You seem to be better informed on these overlaps between this bill and the wildlife protection legislation of Ontario. For how many years has there been such legislation in your province?
[English]
Dr. Quinney: The Ontario provincial Endangered Species Act has been in place for well over 15 years.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Is it effective, in your view? Does it really protect endangered species?
[English]
Dr. Quinney: It has been effective in the province of Ontario.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: It is the same in Quebec. Quebec has legislation for the protection of endangered species and people are concerned by the prospect of legislation at the federal level with all the potential for overlap, duplication, costs and legal action that it entails.
You said that some clauses of the bill are a matter of concern. Do you have any specific concerns with regard to overlap between federal and provincial jurisdictions?
[English]
Dr. Quinney: No. Rather, we hope the Government of Canada will work cooperatively with not only the Province of Ontario but with each of the provinces to ensure the legislation doesn't result in duplication or conflict.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: You say that we should rely on the good will of all parties if we put into the legislation clauses that overlap with provincial legislation, but we have to be realistic. It is there, it is in the books, it is enforceable, it will be used and there is nothing you can do about it. It is not a matter of good will, it is a matter of implementing legislation.
[English]
Dr. Quinney: I can't comment further on legal jurisdictions. But I will say in the area of endangered species and wildlife protection Canada-wide, surely there are large roles for each level of government and for all levels of government to work cooperatively on behalf of wildlife.
.1705
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Following the agreement reached in Charlottetown between ministers of the Environment, the federal minister of the Environment made the promise, to the minister of Quebec among others, that this bill would pay due respect to all existing legislation. However, we can already see difficulties arising in Quebec because there will be overlaps. Could you suggest constructive amendments to this bill in order to avoid such situations?
[English]
Dr. Quinney: Yes. I hope in our written submission you will find the concrete examples you're seeking.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Guay.
[English]
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much.
On page 5 of your presentation, you say in the second paragraph:
- Bill C-65 does not specify that the Minister will compensate parties who agree to forfeit
production or income as part of habitat management agreements. This is a clear deficiency in
the legislation.
- In the next paragraph you go on to say:
- Landowners believe that no one individual should have to bear the whole cost of society's
responsibility to protect a species, and we agree. A clear compensation clause should be
included in Section 8.(2).
In the House of Commons on Friday, I said for some groups the issue was no expropriation that would have as an effect a financial loss, or no expropriation without compensation. Can you give us a little more in-depth explanation of what you are talking about here?
Dr. Quinney: Thank you for the question. On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, we would be pleased to assist the committee in any way in the drafting of specific wording for a compensation clause or compensation clauses. I hesitate to try to do this verbally within the short time available to me here, but we'd be pleased to assist the committee in doing this.
Mr. Forseth: In general, in terms of how you see a compensation clause operating, maybe give a case example without the legal language to give us an idea of where you're coming from on this.
Dr. Quinney: I could give a concrete example of an endangered species in Ontario. It lives not too far from where we sit. The loggerhead shrike was referred to earlier this afternoon. The habitat of the loggerhead shrike is such that in southern Ontario it occurs on private property. Off the top of my head, without being a loggerhead shrike expert, I can tell you it depends on a certain early successional vegetation stage as a critical, essential component of its life cycle. For example, this could consist of and does consist of thorny bushes the loggerhead shrikes use once they have captured prey such as small mammals and mice. The loggerhead shrikes impale them and then eat them at their leisure.
The point, then, is that there are certain types of vegetation or certain shrubs essential to the survival of this species. They happen to fall on private property.
The question society must address is this. The critical component of habitat occurs on private property. There are several alternatives available to the private landowner in terms of how he may wish to use his private property. One alternative is the continued provision of habitat for this species, which all of society wishes to save. Therefore, in our opinion, in order to protect vegetation for the specific purpose of perpetuating loggerhead shrikes, it is entirely appropriate in such a case that those agencies responsible speak with the landowners to determine what would be appropriate.
.1710
Mr. Forseth: We have a case where someone buys a parcel of land. Part of the deal is they anticipate they will subdivide the land and sell off part of it. They are going to be able to build their house with the profits. So they buy the land. They make those financial provisions and commitments. They try to subdivide and then suddenly they find they are not allowed to because the south end of the property is in the fly zone of what somebody has designated a critical area for the loggerhead shrike. So the whole financial deal falls apart and the land is now worth only half. The owner of the property is obligated to the bank way beyond what the original plan was. It is foreclosed and the person now loses the property. So there is a financial loss there.
I'm citing a real case here. There has been a foreclosure. It is almost like an undisclosed easement on property. Maybe even the real estate agent could be held liable. Maybe he did not know. Are you suggesting in this situation there should perhaps be a provincial fund so someone could at least go to some kind of public arbitration to seek compensation for unforeseen loss?
Dr. Quinney: I'm sorry. For several reasons, I am having difficulty following this particular hypothetical example. In the areas most familiar to me - in southern Ontario, for example - many of the local levels of government, whether or not they are municipalities, have what are known as official plans. These official plans currently describe important natural features of lands within their jurisdictions.
So I'm sorry, but I am having difficulty responding to this hypothetical example.
Mr. Forseth: Well, it's a real example. A foreclosure did result and someone said they essentially lost their land because of the provincial statute. It was related to the loggerhead shrike.
There may be some other details. Perhaps certain individuals didn't know what they were entering into, and all the rest of it. But this was the initial complaint. There was a loss of value in the land because it was in the fly zone of this bird. This, therefore, interfered with the owner's financial plans to subdivide the property. So the property could not be subdivided as a result of this protection of certain habitat. But this came after the fact. The individual had made financial plans and had not understood this at the time. As a result, there was a loss.
Where does this person go? Would you envision that this person could go to a provincial arbiter for some kind of public compensation?
Dr. Quinney: Thank you for the clarification. The principle we're putting forward here would assist such landowners. In terms of potential models, the idea of a multi-jurisdictional advisory board to hear potential compensation claims would certainly be worth examining.
Mr. Forseth: On page 8 of your closing comments, you say there really needs to be an investment of further public money to make programs viable. This seems to be something that happens across government. We have all kinds of fancy brochures and maps and everything on what we're going to do. It might be on cleaning up toxic sites or whatever. To find the money to actually deliver on those plans is another thing.
In your call for more money, could you describe to us specifically where you think this money should be targeted for it to be most effective?
Dr. Quinney: Sure. The single most important expenditure would be on habitat protection and habitat supply for wildlife across this country, particularly in the southern portions of Canada that have been prone for so long to human pressures.
.1715
Mr. Forseth: Do you see that then by provincial governments buying up land, or would this be in support of some kind of grant funding so that local volunteer groups could demonstrate their plans to government and apply for operational grants? Just what are you talking about?
Dr. Quinney: It would not be necessary for levels of government to necessarily purchase lands to afford wildlife protection or supply that habitat. There is a terrific number of successful examples of partnerships to in fact protect wildlife habitat. There are a heck of a lot of examples out there right now. I can give you quite an extensive list, which includes federal-provincial partnerships and partnerships between the federal government and organizations like my own. There are all kinds of examples.
Mr. Forseth: The supplement I'll ask is: could the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters present some kind of plan that you could actually use at the local level with, say, federal and provincial money to address to an issue?
Dr. Quinney: Absolutely.
Mr. Forseth: You call for money to be spent, but then let's ask where and how could it be most effectively focused. Maybe you could use your own organization as an example.
Dr. Quinney: Absolutely. At your leisure, I can give you an extensive list with documentation of how those moneys would be very wisely spent.
Mr. Forseth: Maybe we can get together to do that.
Dr. Quinney: I'd be happy to do that.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. This is as long as the impression is not created that this bill can be amended in order to include compensation of the nature you just discussed. The royal recommendations simply don't permit any amendment to that effect. So it would be a very interesting conversation, I'm sure, but it would be hypothetical because of the limitations imposed by the royal recommendations for this bill.
Mr. Adams, followed by Mr. Steckle, followed by the chair.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terry, how are you?
Dr. Quinney: Very well, Mr. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Adams: I agree with your concern, by the way, about deer farming. I think it's something we should do and should already be doing. I agree with the points about prevention being the key in these areas. I think we should do everything we possibly can to prevent species from getting anywhere near these lists. That's what we should be doing.
But it seems to me that with the species that are already on these lists or close to it, we're in the situation in which we're having to deal with situations. You gave the example of the extirpation of the turkeys. You had to deal with that, but it was too late to prevent the disappearance of the turkeys.
It seems to me that this is what the legislation is designed to do. If I might say this to you, I see it not as something that overlaps with these other jurisdictions.
I liked your answer to one of Paul Forseth's questions - perhaps it was Madame Guay's - whereby you spoke of all levels of government. There's local expertise and more general expertise. I don't see it as a matter of overlap; I see it as a matter of filling in the gaps and providing the safety net for the species that sadly are on the brink, as it were.
On the overlap thing, as you know, Madame Guay belongs to a particular party, so she's asking you about overlaps for a particular reason that has to do with her interest in one province ceasing to be part of Confederation.
Can you give us some examples of the overlaps between this and legislation you know about?
Dr. Quinney: Some concrete examples where...?
Mr. Adams: If there's genuine overlap, by the way, my safety net thing doesn't work. If someone is already doing it, then we should be very careful of it and look at it.
Dr. Quinney: Mr. Adams, we gave one example in the written submission with reference to the northern bobwhite quail in southwestern Ontario, but that's just one example.
Mr. Adams: But it's already protected?
.1720
Dr. Quinney: It has been designated by COSEWIC federally, but it's a provincial bird. So we're in a situation in southwestern Ontario where, for example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, in association with local landowners and the Province of Ontario, is trying to restore bobwhite quail to southwestern Ontario, where it used to be very healthy.
If this current legislation goes through as written, will we be able to continue down that road to restoration as smoothly as things have been going, or are we going to have to deal with a whole new layer of bureaucracy that in fact will slow the restoration down?
Mr. Adams: As it's written now, though.... You happen to live in the province where, as you've said yourself, there is the strongest protection already. You're working in a legal framework, so what change do you actually think will happen? Do you think that if there is concern about it under provincial legislation, the federal officials are going to come in and say, stop worrying about that provincially; we'll deal with it?
Dr. Quinney: I'll give you a concrete example. In a case like that we would be concerned about duplication of effort and about money not being spent efficiently. Obviously none of us want to find ourselves in a situation where we're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Adams: Listen, there are two Pauls here and one Peter. I'd be a bit concerned about your uses.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Dr. Quinney: That's precisely our point.
Mr. Adams: I hear you.
Dr. Quinney: Unfortunately we don't hear a commitment from the minister that there will be some new money to assist with this legislation. If there isn't, then in fact is Peter going to be robbed to pay Paul?
Mr. Adams: Going back to my net analogy, where there is something going on, do you really think the federal government is going to move in and say, oh, we want to take over protecting this species, which is already being protected?
Let me go another way. As you say in your brief, you live in a jurisdiction now in which, unlike in many others, there is good legislation in place. Under that, the strongest legislation that exists in Canada, do you know of any case where a private landowner has been taken to court on a matter to do with endangered or near endangered species? And as you say, it's been going on for many years.
Dr. Quinney: I don't personally know.
Mr. Adams: Again, what I'm after is what change of regime you envisage. What sorts of differences are there going to be for private landowners in Ontario, compared with this very stringent legislation they've been living under for a number of years?
Dr. Quinney: My first reaction is that in our reading of the new legislation, landowners are going to be very apprehensive. It must be made clear to them, in our opinion, that they are valued members of the conservation community, rather than the only message being, we're coming into town with a big hammer if you don't continue to provide the level of stewardship that you have.
Chances are that in a lot of cases the only reason the species remains on the landscape, at least in southern Canada - for example, southern Ontario - is private property owners.
Mr. Adams: I understand that argument. Why is it, do you think, that under this very stringent legislation that Ontario landowners live under now and have been living under for a number of years, there's been no case so far that you can cite of a landowner being taken to court on this matter?
Dr. Quinney: It's probably because of the exact legal nature of the writing of the legislation.
Mr. Adams: Like what?
Dr. Quinney: An example is the absence of the words ``habitat protection on private property''.
Mr. Adams: I disagree. As you know, I know the provincial legislation fairly well, because I helped produce and write some of it.
.1725
Have you heard of due diligence? You're a landowner, and you gave some scenarios of due diligence. If in ignorance or by accident things happen, landowners are protected, as we all are in various areas. As long as the landowner, is practising due diligence, he or she is safe from prosecution.
Let's imagine the last breeding pair of something was on private land and that private land had been bought to be developed, and these people have now found.... They've made the investment and so on. Would you encourage them to go ahead and put the bulldozers in on the last two individuals of an endangered species on somebody's private land?
Dr. Quinney: Of course not.
Mr. Adams: I don't think they would. I think some way would be found, surely to goodness, under those circumstances, to help someone who has made.... Perhaps it's their life savings or something of the sort.
By the way, it's because we deal with extreme cases, the one endangered species, the one tiny piece of property that someone's livelihood depends on, that you get into these sorts of things.
I would suggest to you, Terry, that already in Ontario you're living under a regime, and your private landowners are living under a regime, which is as stringent as this. There might be some changes in a few species or something to do with migratory birds, but even now, I would suggest to you, if one of your landowners discovered his or her piece of property, which they were going to do something with, was essential to some bird which is flying over, they would not in fact develop it; they would marshal support to protect that piece of property which is necessary for that species.
I don't see any change. I really don't. Unless you can give me some way in which buying this private property or developing this property is endangered or something under this legislation, I don't see it. I've read your stuff and there are some good things in here, as I said, but can you give me an example of how it would be different?
Dr. Quinney: I'm sorry, Mr. Adams, but we know very well from the grassroots level in the province of Ontario the concerns that have been expressed over many months - in fact more than months - the apprehension that's been expressed about this federal legislation coming down. Private property owners express not only apprehension but that they would be required to shoulder the burden of society's responsibility here.
We are simply requesting that this legislation reflect the concerns of private property owners in this country, because there's one heck of a lot of important wildlife habitat on that property. Those private property owners must be recognized as stewards of that wildlife habitat by all of Canadian society. The federal government can play a lead role in that recognition through this legislation and we can't see it there at the moment, as the legislation is written.
Mr. Adams: I believe these private landowners whom you're representing are very interested in protecting endangered species. I agree with you, they do. I wonder who is telling them, in Ontario now because that's the area you represent, that they already live - I assume comfortably - in the most stringent regime that exists in the country. A citizen can take them to court if they wish, and citizens never do. I wonder if anyone is telling them that.
Now, if we were in some other province, with no legislation...and there are some; there are other provinces with endangered species legislation, but I would suggest to you none of them are as strong as they are in Ontario. Perhaps there's some concern for someone in Alberta, where there's no such legislation, because it's new to them, but to your landowners it is not new. Is anyone telling them it's the same as before but with some changes in species and so on? Are you telling me at the moment, for example, your people would put a bulldozer into that piece of private property if it were not, as you said, a provincial bird?
Dr. Quinney: No.
Mr. Adams: They would not.
To go back to the provincial bird, my thoughts about the safety net, as distinct from duplication, is that people keep saying the birds don't know which jurisdiction they're in, nor do the other species. I would suggest to you you could talk to your landowners in those terms. If they support it at the provincial level now, and I think they do, and then suddenly another species appears which is endangered in some way, are they not going to support it?
.1730
Dr. Quinney: Mr. Adams, the difference is that I don't believe the bottom-line impact of this legislation has been adequately explained to the landowners in southern Canada to ensure that they have the necessary comfort level with it.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I do agree with that. If I might say one thing, we face this as legislators all the time. You get these windows of opportunity to do things. This is our window of opportunity at the federal level, I think, to produce this safety net that I've described to you. You're right, ideally we'd have many years to debate and publicize and so on, but we actually don't.
I really hope that when you go back, using your magazine, you'll help us get out this view that the environment for landowners in Ontario is going to be the same, except that there will be some more species on the list. Do you agree with me? In other words, there are some species that are going to land on their property that at the moment are not protected but that they would not destroy anyway.
Dr. Quinney: Well, Mr. Adams, the level of discomfort is very high.
Mr. Adams: Would you go out and explain what I just said, that there's no change?
Dr. Quinney: In order for us to do that as an organization, we would need further clarification and reassurance, given some of the concerns we've expressed about the current wording in the bill.
Mr. Adams: I'm not asking you to go out and whitewash the bill. You have things in your submission that I agree with, things I don't, but there is some good stuff in it. But the basic point is that for the private landowner in Ontario, which is where you represent, there is essentially no change except that some other species might land on their property that they might want to protect.
Dr. Quinney: Correct.
Mr. Adams: Imagine today...if one of the species that is not a provincial bird landed on their land, they would not destroy that species. Terry, you know that. So it's the same as -
Dr. Quinney: Okay, Peter, I think I'm a little clearer now on an example you were seeking. You say that surely for the average landowner who may have one endangered species on his property now, if another one lands there next week he will surely protect that one as well. Gosh, that would be our hope as well. But I think for the average property owner in southern Ontario who may have some valuable wildlife habitat, there is a finite list of the number of species he'd be willing to save on behalf of all society, when maybe he was hoping to have a little bit of that wildlife habitat for other purposes.
Mr. Adams: Or he could have none. Most of them have none. It's just like a lottery. They might get one next week. The list is finite, Mr. Chairman. It's a very short list of species that, sadly, we have to protect. As you said, if we could go back to the preventive approach and the list were reduced to zero, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is a finite list we're talking about. The list is going to be a bit longer in the technical sense. In the moral sense the list is exactly the same length. These species either need protection or they don't.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams. I think Dr. Quinney would like to have the last word.
Dr. Quinney: That's all right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Then let's have Mr. Steckle, Mr. Knutson and the chair.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Terry, it's again a pleasure to put a question or two to you this afternoon.
I think we all share a sense of concern about the bill and I think the issue has been raised by a number of parties. Mr. Forseth raised it and you have raised it yourself, primarily because of the fact that private landowners are perhaps the ones who are most concerned about this bill. It is going to impact, they believe, on the way they do business and how it relates to their property and what rights they have to their property and what costs are going to be associated to that, what loss of revenues there may be from certain lands.
.1735
Coming from a rural part of Ontario and having been part of a municipal government system for a number of years, understanding somewhat the implications of some of the funding measures that take place and how plans are affected and how impacts from conservation authorities impact on wetlands and whatever you have...certain plans have already been put into place that have an impact, particularly related to wetlands in Ontario. There isn't always compensation. That's where I have a grievance with the government bodies that enact these kinds of initiatives whereby people are impacted on. There's a mentality in society that somehow rural people, those who own the land in rural Canada, should bear the cost of doing this.
I also believe we've run out of funds. We've exhausted the finances in this country. We have to find new ways of doing it. I think the best way of funding it is in finding agreement by all people.
Ducks Unlimited is a good example. They have been able to initiate programs of concern about species and the numbers of species, and particularly the way they're reducing in their numbers. They've been able to extrapolate tremendous amounts of money from certain people in society who wish to contribute to that voluntarily. I think in selling this legislation we need to do the same kind of thing. We need to be partners with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, with Ducks Unlimited. We need to sell this legislation in such a way that it's understood.
It needs to be the kind of legislation that really embodies the kind of things that would serve the best interests of rural Canada, because obviously that's where it is. We can't go into Metro and say the buildings are too tall and there are too many lights and thousands of birds are being killed each year simply because we haven't turned the lights off. I think we would have a real problem in going to them, because we wouldn't know which borough...or how we should address that. So we tend to deal with rural Canada because the numbers of people are smaller, and perhaps that's where we really do find the habitat and the nesting places of these species; that is, if there are species of wildlife.
I guess my concern is that because we're talking about the jurisdiction of federal lands...and that's something that needs to be clearly understood. We're talking about jurisdiction over federal lands only in this legislation. That is something we need to understand clearly. And it is my wish, as one from rural Ontario, that we put in place the best legislation we can. Along with everyone in this committee and I suppose everyone in the House of Commons, I would agree we need to preserve species that are endangered. All of us would agree to that. I think the fact that birdwatching is the fastest-growing sport in Canada today means we have a lot of friends on our side.
I have a lot of questions, but we're fast running out of time here. I guess if we were to look at the funding, if we were to divert funds from one program, what programs would you see as suffering, possibly suffering, as a result of moving funding from a program to programs protecting endangered species? We're not putting new moneys into this department. What programs that are vitally critical in the maintenance of those programs might you see us finding short because of this?
Dr. Quinney: Let me give you a couple of quick examples. They are under the overall heading of habitat protection or supply.
You mentioned successful partnerships. The North American waterfowl management plan is an excellent example of cooperation among all levels of government and the private sector. You've mentioned organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Our concern would be that as a result of the new legislation there would be a decreased commitment on the part of the federal government to continue their involvement in the North American waterfowl management plan, which as you know is not just waterfowl management, it's wetland securement, restoration, etc. When you help wetlands, you're helping a tonne of species.
.1740
Again, our concern would be diverting existing important federal emphasis and dollars from programs such as the North American waterfowl management plan to create the necessary bureaucracy that's going to have to go along with this.
That's one concrete example - the North American waterfowl management plan. Would you like some others?
Mr. Steckle: Well, I think you have the right message.
I'm asking you, in your senior position, to help us, because you do get your message out. I'm a subscriber to the association, so I know what kind of material goes out and what kinds of messages are given. I would hope you would help us carry the message, because we need to have a clear message out there that we're not here to prescribe new laws that are going to cause a lot of grief to landowners in Ontario and all of Canada, particularly in the west, where there isn't already an embodiment of legislation. I ask you to do that, if you would, please.
The other question I have is in the area of the federal lands of the north, where we find our native peoples. You talk about that on page 3. I'm just wondering what kind of advice you see them giving us that we should take heed of.
Dr. Quinney: I wouldn't be as presumptuous as to attempt to describe the advice this committee will hear from, for example, the peoples of northern Canada. Our point is simply that of course the residents of northern Canada by definition are closest to the land there, and they will have important perspectives, living on the land there, that surely the committee will want to entertain in their drafting of this legislation.
Mr. Steckle: In closing, may I say that I find all of the letters to the committee that I've seen - and the chairman has seen them too - lend credence to the fact that we have not gone far enough with this legislation, that it is not strong enough. We have too many ``mays'' in there where there should be ``shoulds''.
I'm simply saying I think they believe it's a watered-down bill, but you have given us the opposite today, so perhaps we've found a balance. But I think you can help us sell the right message if changes need to be made.
Dr. Quinney: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: On the last point, I don't think I heard you say you think the bill goes too far, as my colleague seems to be suggesting. You have some specific concerns, but in a general sense you're not suggesting the bill goes too far.
Mr. Steckle: The concern is a real one, though.
Dr. Quinney: Mr. Knutson -
Mr. Knutson: You can call me Gar, since we're being pretty informal today.
Dr. Quinney: Thank you. It depends on the area of the bill you're talking about.
Mr. Knutson: I understand that, and in a minute I'll come to clause 56, which you raise as an example, but in a general way you're not suggesting the bill be withdrawn.
Dr. Quinney: We are suggesting it requires major revisions in parts.
Mr. Knutson: Fair enough.
Let me move to what I had intended to say anyway. I agree with what I read as the general gist of the submission and the points you raised. Specifically around the area of compensation, it's clear that whether it's a mortgage holder or a landowner, they shouldn't bear the cost of something that's done in the public interest.
While we might agree that an individual farmer or landowner, a human being, might take proper stewardship of their land, unfortunately that's not true when it's a development company or a corporation. As in Peter's example, unfortunately there are lots of companies that would develop the land even if it had the last two birds, and that's the case. We've seen that lots and lots of times. We've cut down all the trees in an area. It's usually the companies that make those decisions, not individual people. So I agree that there should be compensation.
.1745
Changing topics, on page 6 you comment that clause 56 is too bureaucratic and costly to be efficient and effective. Clause 56 was put into the bill on the presumption that from time to time there may be a Minister of the Environment who doesn't do their job, and an assistant comes along and says the government needs to do something for an investigation. Working from that presumption that the minister or the ministry isn't going to do their job - it doesn't happen all the time, but occasionally we might have a Minister of the Environment who is delinquent or not acting in good faith - what's wrong with that process?
Dr. Quinney: It's flawed if at the end of the day wildlife is not better off.
Mr. Knutson: Specifically, though, what's...?
Dr. Quinney: Specifically, again, if the cost of the administration and the cost of a new bureaucracy could be better spent on habitat protection, then it would be our opinion that you should put the emphasis there.
Mr. Knutson: Say we have a minister who is not doing their job, and you as a citizen, or even your group, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, ask for an investigation. The minister acknowledges receipt in writing; no money is involved there. They give you notice of a decision not to investigate within 60 days; that doesn't take a lot of money. Or they decide to do an investigation based on your request for an investigation, and they advise you every three months of what's going on so there's some transparency in this process.
We send a copy of the report to the applicant that the investigation is suspended. There's not a lot of bureaucracy to send you a copy of a report. I have people come to me and complain when government agencies can't get copies of things.
So this seems a pretty open, transparent process. We notify the applicant if the investigation is subsequently.... There's no bureaucracy in sending you notification. And we send a copy of the final report.
My point is if you've come and asked the minister to do an investigation of an offence, the minister has to tell you in a very public way whether or not they've done that investigation, and if they haven't, why they haven't, and if they have, what the results have been. What's bureaucratic about any of that?
Dr. Quinney: The way you described it is quite straightforward. Unfortunately there's a cumulative impact of several clauses of the bill. When, as you say, the minister is not doing his job -
Mr. Knutson: Or her job.
Dr. Quinney: - what kicks in? Again, the bottom-line point is, gosh, all those resources are going to a bureaucracy; couldn't they be better spent on the wildlife itself?
Mr. Knutson: Fine, though I do think at the end of the day, in cases where the minister, he or she, hasn't done their job, part of making governments accountable is giving citizens or citizen's groups like your own the opportunity to complain. If they're not satisfied with how that complaint's been handled, they should have the opportunity to go court.
The last point I'll make is on your point that we should increase funding for wildlife preservation. I agree with you wholeheartedly and I'd encourage your group to make that case perhaps as loudly as you're making other points about laws these days.
Maybe you could send me some stickers that say, ``Increase Wildlife Funding''. I'd appreciate getting those.
Dr. Quinney: I'd be happy to, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you. I'll close on that.
The Chairman: Thanks.
I have a question. Mr. Quinney, on page 5 you elaborate on the fact that the bill does not specify compensation. In your discussions in preparing this brief, did you quantify the compensation that would be involved if it were to be included in the bill? Keep in mind what I mentioned earlier when Mr. Forseth was questioning you, namely, that an amendment to this bill to include compensation is not possible because it increases the cost of the measure and therefore it is not within the royal recommendation.
.1750
Have you quantified the cost of the bureaucracy required in determining the amount of compensation? Second, have you determined or have you a vague idea that you could give to this committee as to the compensation amount itself? Third, would your members be willing to see a possible increase in taxes in order to make this compensation mechanism possible?
Dr. Quinney: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters quantifying the costs implied by the new bureaucracy in the legislation, the short answer is no. Unfortunately, we have not had time to, given the short notice we have had to appear before you. So unfortunately, no, we have not quantified the costs associated with the bureaucracy.
Nor have we had time to, for example, quantify the hypothetical level of compensation that might be suggested, for example, in the province of Ontario, although we are quite cognizant that with reference to the province of Ontario, which is where our mandate lies, federal lands are relatively few. Therefore, we recognize fully that the impact on private property owners in the province of Ontario will certainly not be felt to the degree it will in other parts of this country.
Finally, would the membership of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters embrace a new tax or an increase in tax to assist with the compensation that we are advocating go hand in hand with this legislation? I think the short answer is no.
First, they would say no because they are not convinced at this point in time that the Government of Canada has its priorities straight with reference to its programming expenditures. We firmly believe that the federal government should spend more money on wildlife programs in this country.
The Chairman: Fair enough.
Let's examine two aspects of what you said. First, you said that if the federal jurisdiction were hypothetically to introduce a system of compensation, immediately the pressure by affected Canadians on their respective provincial governments to do the same would be triggered and it would be only a matter of time before you have compensation not only on federal lands but also on provincial lands.
Second, look at the list of the endangered categories. As you know, it ranges from the cougar to the marmot, and includes the whooping crane, various owls, the shrike, a sparrow, the prothonotary warbler, the cricket frog in Ontario, and so on.
You can visualize here a situation wherein I, as a property owner, would be restrained or would be asked not to proceed with harvesting my woodlots in order to achieve this protection. And my neighbour would be asked as well, he and all the others over a stretch that in the case of a prothonotary warbler would reach from, let's say, Kapuskasing to Niagara Falls, and in the case of the marmot, another stretch east-west, which remains undefined...we could be collectively asking for very large sums of money for compensation, not just in the millions. We would want to be compensated for not proceeding with what we would otherwise be doing, let's say, the clearcutting. We would be forced into a different approach to forest management, which could be less profitable, and perhaps at times not even cutting at all, and all of a sudden we would have a legitimate claim on the public to compensate us for this forgone revenue. It would be quite a sum, you know.
.1755
Do you have any comments to offer?
Dr. Quinney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. These are extremely difficult questions.
We're in a situation in the example you're giving, say it's Kapuskasing and a private property owner, where the private property owner is holding an asset that society says must remain on his property. If we don't entertain the concept of compensation, we will and are running into situations where landowners will say, hey, endangered species legislation is coming, I have this asset. I'm going to get rid of this asset before the hammer, in the form of legislation, comes. I won't have those trees on my property for the prothonotary warbler; I'll cut them down now, so that by the time the legislation comes into effect, I won't have prothonotary warbler habitat on my property any more and the act won't have anything to do with me any more. So these are extremely difficult -
The Chairman: And the price of lumber would have dropped on the market, because everybody would be cutting and there would be a phenomenal glut all of a sudden.
Dr. Quinney: Fortunately, in the province of Ontario we have a lot of crown timber,Mr. Caccia. But my response to that point is simply what's best for healthy wildlife in this country.
The Chairman: That's where all our thoughts converge and this is what we have in common. The purpose of asking you this question is really to see whether you can quantify the cost of additional bureaucracy and the cost of compensation, because at a certain point in your brief you express some concern about additional public spending, and what you are proposing here is additional public spending. You may reverse your priorities, as you say. However, that is not likely to happen. There are other pressures in maintaining existing priorities, but if you are really concerned with keeping public spending where it is now, then the question of compensation needs to be re-examined, I respectfully submit to you.
Do you have any comment?
Dr. Quinney: My comment is that we would be pleased to attempt quantification with reference to the perceived bureaucracy we believe will result from the legislation. In terms of potentials for compensation, if you would in writing entertain further suggestions with reference to the compensation, we're happy to do that.
The Chairman: You will have to open an office just to examine all the applicants, determine who qualifies, who doesn't, whether the compensation they claim is justified, send out inspectors. Before you know it, man, you have quite a red trail there.
Dr. Quinney: It would be parallel to COSEWIC, in other words, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
.1800
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, could you clarify what you mentioned earlier about the designation from the House of Commons to this committee? We understand it was a motion to refer to committee. There was no vote at second reading, so it does give the committee much more latitude than in the normal process.
The Chairman: No doubt. But I'm only warning that we should not create the impression with witnesses that the bill can be modified beyond the royal recommendation, thus permitting expenditures that are not anticipated within the bill itself.
Mr. Forseth: Where, then, would a potential for amending subclause 8(2) to provide compensation...? Obviously, someone has to have the ability to be able to do that at some point.
The Chairman: I don't think within the scope of the bill that type of compensation could be inserted in the bill, but I will let the clerk answer.
Mr. Forseth: It would all depend on who does the inserting, I suppose.
The Clerk of the Committee: I'd have to verify, but I think it would have to be done at the report stage and it would need a new royal recommendation affixed to the bill.
Mr. Knutson: It would be on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Clerk: That's correct.
Mr. Forseth: I suppose the government could bring forward those issues. Like the signal warning, where I talked about the basic rules of the game that I made in my comments in Hansard, I predict there's going to be a firestorm of protest. It will start rolling in the west and it will come to kill the bill unless we deal with this issue of no expropriation without compensation.
There may be ways of getting around it, to look at specific actual loss rather than potential value, and there may be ways of limiting it, but unless there is something there, I'm just signalling that there's trouble.
The Chairman: It's very helpful that you're signalling the possibility of trouble. It is also up to the quality of leadership of witnesses and of the members of this committee to ensure that the bill is understood in the way it is intended and not beyond its scope in what it can do and what it cannot achieve.
Every time there is new legislation there are fears. There are fears about impact, and those fears are in 95% of the cases unwarranted. Nevertheless, they are created because of the novelty of the legislation and the uncertainty that people see within that context.
The bill sets its limits in its recommendation, and it had better be understood that this bill cannot be amended to provide for compensation very soon in the proceedings, rather than creating false hopes. That's all I'm saying.
Mr. Forseth: What happens in relation to community groups, if they see this is not a possibility.... If someone sees potential loss, what actually happens is that the act ensures the extinction of species, because certain landowners will go out and make sure there are none of those species on their land.
The Chairman: One could say that in the case of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick the legislation has not caused losses, that the federal application just mirrors the measures that have already been applied provincially. There has been sufficient experience and time elapsed since provincial legislation was introduced and therefore this legislation is not even breaking new ground. It is reflecting, on federal lands, what is already happening on provincial lands.
I think your organization has a particular leadership role to play, Dr. Quinney, if I may be so bold, in establishing with your membership the fact that what the federal legislation is all about is mirroring what has existed in Ontario for some time.
.1805
Dr. Quinney: My comment to that, Mr. Chairman, is that among the reasons the Ontario provincial legislation has been successful is not because it is a hammer, it's because there are other funds and sources of attention that are then turned to wildlife. If the federal government, on their part, can do the same, then they'll meet with success.
The Chairman: That's what the federal government is attempting to do.
Dr. Quinney: Unfortunately, at least in our reading thus far, we will be concerned that there will be an actual diversion from existing good Environment Canada programs to get this thing up and running. What sacrifices will be made?
The Chairman: Perhaps you may want to indicate the programs that would be departed from so we can examine that aspect. It is not included in your brief today.
Dr. Quinney: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Quinney.
The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning.