[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chairman: We may as well start as close to 3:30 p.m. as possible.
I welcome today the witnesses from the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. We're very glad to have you here. I would like to have you introduce yourselves and then to decide the order in which you wish to make your presentations.
Mr. Pete Ewins (Endangered Species Director, World Wildlife Fund): My name is Pete Ewins with the World Wildlife Fund.
Ms Mary Granskou (Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society): I'm Mary Granskou. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Mr. John Riley (Director of Conservation and Science, Federation of Ontario Naturalists): I'm John Riley, director of conservation and science for the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
The Chairman: Welcome.
Mr. Ewins: We're happy to do it in the order we're presented in the agenda, if that's okay.
I'm Pete Ewins. I'm the director of the endangered species program with the World Wildlife Fund. I just wanted to follow through some of the points on the written sheets that you' probably have in front of you, but not to read the script as such.
The World Wildlife Fund is the largest environmental conservation organization in the world, with over 5 million members. In Canada, the World Wildlife Fund was founded in 1967. We now have over 55,000 members and an annual revenue in excess of $11 million.
Our aims are to conserve nature and ecological processes via partnerships and in particular to give long-term conservation advice based on sound science and sustainable use of resources. I should stress that the World Wildlife Fund is not an animal rights group. The World Wildlife Fund is one of the six steering committee members of the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition.
So in the presentation I want to give here, I want to make four general points and then six specific ones. You will find further details in the seven-page deposition, including a clause-by-clause analysis at the end.
For the four general points, first, World Wildlife Fund welcomes the efforts of the Canadian government to produce Canada's first bill for endangered species legislation. Because of Canada's vast natural resources and its tremendous opportunities to conserve biological diversity, it really has now to live up to its global responsibility and to provide a very firm, strong leadership for the rest of the world in endangered species conservation.
WWF congratulates the federal government for consulting very widely in the preparation of this bill and for working closely with the provinces and territories to produce the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. However, a number of essential elements have been excluded that were repeated regularly and stressed by many experts during that consultation process.
The key one is really the discretionary rather than mandatory powers that are scattered through the bill in a really liberal way. Really, this means that the bill as it stands will not be able to do the job at hand, which is the effective conservation and recovery of Canada's wildlife species at risk. Therefore, World Wildlife Fund Canada would have great difficulty in accepting this bill, as it stands, as the federal lead on strong national conservation action for wildlife species at risk.
.1540
Third, we agree that delivery of effective conservation action can only be done by strong partnerships. At the polls, Canadians have repeated many times - in fact, there are well over 100,000 signatures on petitions and individual letters to MPs and ministers - that political excuses are no longer justification for continued loss of biodiversity from this planet. The public demands effective partnerships for positive action to help conserve these species, with a strong federal act to function as a national safety net for all our threatened and endangered species.
Fourth, in my presentation here I wish to register support for the majority of the detailed specific comments that have been lodged previously by other members of the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition steering committee, many of which overlap with those recommendations in the government's own task force final report to Minister Marchi.
Turning to the six main World Wildlife Fund comments on this bill, first, what's wrong with the status quo? Well, the status quo clearly does not provide adequate protection for Canada's species at risk, otherwise none of us would be here today. The COSEWIC list, for example, continues to grow annually and in 1996 an additional 19 species or populations were either added to the list or upgraded from a lower endangered or threatened category.
Currently in Canada, we have a patchwork of wildlife legislation with some large variations interprovincially. Four provinces already have endangered species acts, and throughout most of them there are very loosely worded, mainly discretionary powers, and the programs they allude to are not funded to effective levels.
I'll give two examples. One, Quebec has had an endangered species act for seven years, and as of today they still have yet to list even one animal species. Secondly, in Ontario their endangered species act of a few years ago includes 12 to 15 or so plant species, but in fact Ontario has over 600 plant species that occur in only one or two locations in the province. In an ideal world, this would clearly meet the criteria for endangered status or threatened status in Ontario and nationally.
Wildlife species continue to fall through the cracks toward extinction, the cracks created by our not having protective mechanisms to a consistently high national standard across the entire country. Realistically, this bill will do little other than to preserve the status quo and it will not make significant improvements, as it stands, for the conservation of wildlife in Canada.
Second is the case for a federal safety net. World Wildlife Fund believes it is the federal government that must provide this legislative safety net for Canada to reverse the tidal wave of biodiversity loss. The Canadian Bar Association and many international experts agree that this is the role of the national organization, and you're all presumably aware of the UN biodiversity convention and what it requires Canada to do.
If, and only if, the provinces and territories provide effective conservation legislation and programs, there would be no need to use such a safety net to prevent the declines that we're seeing. Therefore, clause 33, the one that relates to international cross-border species, should be extended to include all animal and plant species on an endangered list on all lands and waters of Canada. In the application clause, therefore - clause 3 - this legislation should apply to all of Canada, with provisions for provincial jurisdiction to apply when acceptable strong provincial legislation and action are set in place. This was termed an equivalency clause in some of the previous task force deliberations, I believe.
Third, concerning protection of habitat, the habitat needs of these species, over 80% of these 276 COSEWIC-listed species at risk are on that list, primarily due to problems with loss and degradation of habitat. Despite this clear evidence, Bill C-65 provides very weak protection for the entire habitat needs of a species.
.1545
Simple ecological principles familiar to a high school student really have to apply here. An animal needs much more than a denning site or a nest in order to survive; it needs somewhere to feed, to stage, to disperse - habitat that is linked by some sort of corridor along which it can travel.
If this bill does not provide this kind of safety net for the protection of all habitat needs of these species, then it will obviously fail in its own stated purpose. I remind you of clause 5:
- to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct and to provide for the
recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human
activity.
Fourth, concerning recovery plans and action, World Wildlife Fund applauds the proposed mandatory requirement for recovery plans to be produced within fairly tight timeframes of a species being listed. However, the implementation, which is what makes a difference for the species we're dealing with, is discretionary. The minister should be required to exercise these powers, unless we just want pieces of paper sitting on shelves. Ironically, the monitoring of the implementation is mandatory under clause 44, but not the actual implementation. In other words, the minister could be required to monitor the decline and extinction of a species, but not to do anything about it.
Number five relates to advance screening and conflicts with other land uses. The present wording in clause 36, under the application of prohibitions, relating to activities authorized by another act of Parliament, would allow for continued use of toxic pesticides and other land management practices that are required for the protection of existing commercial interests. In particular, I want to focus on animal and plant health, which essentially is almost the whole of agriculture and forestry in Canada. Those would be allowed for, in our view, despite any adverse effects of such actions on endangered or threatened species in such an area.
Clearly, that flies in the face of clause 5 of this bill, the overall aim. The probably familiar example by now is burrowing owls in the prairies and the application of very toxic pesticides that were contributing to their decline. Carbofuran is one example.
Such conflicts, however, can be averted on the ground provided there is appropriate advance screening of the potentially inimical activity. This then relates to the need for a formalized database or mapping system whereby land and resource managers would be able and required to screen and highlight areas where potential conflicts would occur. This kind of system operates quite effectively in the U.S. and in some European countries. The bill should require the minister to establish such a centralized database to enable these resource and land managers to flag potential conflict areas and then come to the table and work out solutions.
Lastly, the structure and function of COSEWIC gives us great concern. Currently this is a federal, provincial, non-government organization committee where species are listed by scientific experts based on scientific criteria. Clauses 13 to 30 of the proposed legislation indicate that Canada's list of species at risk would no longer be a resource to which the public could look for accurate information. The minister would appoint the members of COSEWIC, who would not necessarily have to be scientific experts, and the designations would be made by ministers in consultation, not by scientists.
.1550
Listing determinations are not government decisions; rather, they are objective recognitions of the status of a wildlife species.
So clause 13 must specify that COSEWIC members be independent scientific experts and that the composition of COSEWIC, whether it's nine or more people, should be balanced to include at least one representative from a non-government group as well as academic experts from universities, the Royal Society of Canada and other such reputable organizations. Government scientists should not make up more than 50% of the COSEWIC membership. Only by formally specifying such a structure in the bill for COSEWIC can it remain a credible listing body.
In conclusion, the future of our endangered and threatened wildlife species definitely rests in the hands of a small number of Canadian politicians. They should listen to the voices of their electorate and take this opportunity to provide a firm lead in endangered species legislation for the entire country. Wildlife species don't recognize political boundaries and their future is in your hands now.
Finally, by way of these illustrations, I just wanted to run through a few examples of what the bill would mean for these species.
The Chairman: Can you compress that? It's at the expense of your colleagues and of question period.
Mr. Ewins: Okay.
The Vancouver Island marmot - the furry guy - and the western prairie fringed orchid are not be covered by the bill. The feeding habitat of the burrowing owl is not be covered by the bill, nor is the wet wetlands habitat that the prothonotary warbler needs. And the beluga whale suffers from disturbance from fishing boats and ecotourism, which at the moment is not be covered by the bill. So the answer to the question ``Would these species benefit from the bill?'' is a pretty firm no.
Thanks for your attention.
The Chairman: Could you give the reasons why they wouldn't be covered, so that we have it on record?
Mr. Ewins: It's on record here. Do you want me to specify?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr. Ewins: The marmot wouldn't be covered because it is a mammal species and is not one that ranges into the U.S. It's endemic to Vancouver Island.
The prairie fringed orchid is a plant, so clause 33, the international cross-boundary clause, would not apply to it because that, at the moment, only refers to animal species. The bill altogether doesn't affect the plants.
The burrowing owl would be covered under clause 33, but feeding habitat is excluded at the moment, because the definitions relate to nests and denning sites and not to the broad feeding habitat that a burrowing owl requires. Also, clause 36 would allow continued application of pesticides.
Similarly, the prothonotary warbler in southern Ontario is covered as a migratory bird, but the actual habitat that it needs and the whole regime of water table balance in these Carolinian woodlands is not covered by the bill. If we could just have the conservation of the tree that the nest is in....
The beluga whale is reasonably well off because it's already covered quite strongly by the Fisheries Act, so this bill doesn't do too much extra. But the point I was trying to make was that, nevertheless, no action has been taken to curtail the disturbance to these whales despite existing legislation, and because disturbance is not included in this present bill, there's no prospect at the moment that the beluga whale will be any better off in relation to that disturbance.
The Chairman: Would you be willing to provide the committee with the language you think is necessary to expand the definition of habitat or whatever, so the committee could then make it possible for these specific examples to be included?
Mr. Ewins: I've made suggestions. I've done that in the final three pages, by and large.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you.
Madam Granskou, please.
Ms Granskou: As I said earlier, I am the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Briefly, we are a conservation organization. We have nine chapters across the country. We were founded in 1963 and we have a dual mandate.
.1555
One is to establish and to facilitate the establishment of new protected areas across Canada, and along those lines, we have helped establish and save over 100,000 square kilometres in protected areas in Canada over the last 33 years.
The other side of our mandate and mission focuses on improving the management of existing national, provincial, and territorial protected areas such as Banff National Park. And I'm sure you're familiar with the recent action taken in Banff National Park. A good deal of the impetus behind that was due to our organization and other groups as well. We are grassroots, we work on a cooperative basis, we are science-driven, and we are firmly committed to endangered species legislation for its opportunity to act as a tool for a habitat protection.
I would like to focus on two key points. Before I launch into my presentation, I'd like to say that I support all the other positions that have been stated by the members of the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. Our organization is one of the six leading members of that group. In addition to the points raised by Pete Ewins, which I wholeheartedly support, the two areas I would like to focus on are habitat and how the bill applies, and the scope of the bill, where the bill applies.
In our view, the endangered species act is really about habitat protection, since habitat loss is the number one issue leading to species decline in Canada. Given this, our litmus test for the effectiveness of Bill C-65 will lie in how well it protects habitat and how extensively or broadly across Canada it does so.
The bill that is currently drafted provides for but does not require habitat protection. It falls short of the federal-provincial national accord for the protection of endangered species, which requires all governments to pass legislation that will - not may - protect the habitat of endangered and threatened species. The proposed act is weaker on habitat protection than the four existing provincial laws. We feel there is a great deal of room for, and indeed we are asking for, some major changes on this front.
The federal government must provide strong and effective endangered species legislation as a model for provincial acts. Bill C-65 has widespread ramifications across this country and it will not save species unless it's amended to significantly strengthen both how and where it will protect the habitat of species at risk.
I would like to go through a number of points related to how the bill must be changed to protect habitat.
First, we need to clarify definitions. For instance, there is a definition of critical habitat but there isn't a definition for habitat itself.
Second, there are four areas in which we would like to suggest that the refining of the scope of the bill occur.
One is in the interprovincial area, where the federal government has a clear authority to protect all species in Canada. This power is not exercised in the bill. We agree with the steps raised by WWF on that point, but I'm not going to focus very closely on that issue. I do understand, though, that the Cree and the AFN have both suggested that this should apply everywhere in Canada. We support that view.
I'd like to refer you to the overheads that you have in front of you. First, we really feel that as a bare minimum, if the act does not apply to all interprovincial species, it must apply to transboundary species and their habitats. We feel that is the bare minimum. Right now the bill currently applies to approximately 40% of Canada's species at risk. An additional 20% of Canada's species at risk would be covered by the bill with effective transboundary protection. What I mean by ``effective'' is that right now the bill as proposed stops at allowing a prohibition on harming endangered or threatened transboundary species, but it does not require a prohibition on harm for transboundary species. The habitats of transboundary species are not protected. Recovery and management plans are not required, and there are no means for their implementation.
.1600
If we go back to my original point that habitat is the foundation upon which this bill is built, it clearly does not go far enough. The task force and the Canadian Bar Association both outline the clear federal authority. Let's follow this lead.
We do not think Canada should be in a position in the future to say to the U.S. that it can't work with them on transboundary recovery and management plans because of federal-provincial wrangling. To us, that is unacceptable.
The bill, as far as we are concerned, as a bare minimum should require transboundary species and habitat protection. We must protect the longest undefended border in the world from the tide of extinction.
Strong transboundary protection will also be a tool to help Canada meet its commitment under the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation. On page 2 I have included article 1(c) and article 10(2), which outline the commitment to cooperation among the three governments on species protection and the protection of species habitat.
Also, to enable effective federal authority for transboundary species and to ensure habitat protection for migratory birds, we recommend that the areas in the bill related to migratory birds be clarified and strengthened. We need to build on what is already in the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Incidentally, the MBCA as it stands now only protects nests. We see an opportunity in this bill to expand that to true habitat protection.
I would like to refer you to page 3, concerning some of the Canadian and U.S. species that range across both borders that are not covered by the bill: eastern cougar, peregrine falcon, woodland caribou, swift fox, burrowing owl and grizzly bear. Those covered by the MBCA - but as I've stated, this act is weak on habitat protection - are the piping plover, marbled murrelet, Kirtland's warbler and the Eskimo curlew.
We calculated those species that are not covered by the bill as being all those species that are not aquatic, that are not covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and that do not reside on federal lands for a significant portion of their life cycle...and also whether they will rely only on federal lands to meet all their habitat needs.
I would like to focus on one specific species as an illustration for why this bill should seize the opportunity to be as strong as possible on transboundary protection and habitat protection. I draw your attention to the plight of the grizzly bear. The grizzly is a good indication of the health of an ecosystem. They are particularly vulnerable to disturbance for three reasons. One, they have the lowest reproductive rate of any large mammal in North America, so they're very slow to recover from any population decline. Two, they have very large home ranges, over 500 square kilometres for males. Three, they have low population densities.
I refer you to the distribution of the grizzly bear from 1800 to the present. The grizzly bear, in less than 200 years, has been reduced from its historic range to the current range, which in the lower 48 in the U.S. is less than 2% of its original range. There are roughly 800 bears in shrinking isolated areas in Yellowstone, in Glacier, and in Idaho and Montana.
In Canada we have significantly higher numbers. The grizzly bear is listed as vulnerable; however, there are major problems with the grizzly bear, particularly habitat issues, which I will outline in more depth in a moment.
.1605
Right now the status of the grizzly bear in Canada is vulnerable, but it is threatened in one of the grizzly bear zones identified in the 1991 COSEWIC report. In April 1991 the World Wildlife Fund was present and voted at the COSEWIC meeting where they listed the grizzly as vulnerable. It felt this might understate the status of grizzlies in Canada, because the population numbers were uncertain and the grizzlies are being overharvested in five zones.
I would like to refer you to page 5, which is a map of road densities in southeastern British Columbia. Roads probably have the single biggest impact on grizzlies. They fragment and open up back country to illegal hunting. In southern Alberta and B.C., as you can see, over the last thirty years since the early 1950s to the mid-1980s their habitat has become significantly fragmented. In one case in Alberta one of their key migratory corridors from north to south, up and down the system, is between 30 and 60 kilometres wide. That is near two of the highest-density grizzly areas south of Alaska, the Flathead valley in B.C. and Montana and Glacier National Park in Montana.
We need federal government involvement to step in and protect the grizzly bear through management planning in Canada and to facilitate interjurisdictional cooperation. A single bear can cross the Alberta, B.C., Montana, and Idaho borders all in a single afternoon. In the U.S. the grizzly is protected by laws for threatened species. When it crosses the border into Canada it can be legally shot in Alberta and B.C.
Many organizations and agencies are calling for interjurisdictional cooperation, in which the federal government can do the best job. The World Wildlife Fund in a carnivore study, and the Banff Bow Valley study, which was released in October, a major two-and-a-half-year effort, make the same plea.
What can interagency cooperation do? For the grizzly bear, it can streamline land use goals and strategies.
The Chairman: Ms Granskou, perhaps you will forgive me for interrupting, but the bell is indicating we will have a vote in nine or ten minutes. Perhaps we should hear the balance of your presentation, and Mr. Riley's, as soon as the vote is over. Is that all right with you?
Ms Granskou: Sure.
The Chairman: If you will excuse us, please. Parliament is calling.
This meeting is temporarily adjourned.
.1608
.1709
The Chairman: Please accept our apologies again. We have saved the nation and we can resume our work here.
Perhaps you would like to continue, Ms Granskou, please.
Ms Granskou: How much time should I take? I'll try to keep it to five minutes.
The Chairman: Please.
Ms Granskou: I was discussing why the federal government is needed to protect transboundary species. For the grizzly bear, in particular, there is a desperate need for interagency cooperation to streamline land use goals and strategies. For instance, the federal government is the best place to bring parties together to look at strategies, such as road closures, for the grizzly and other species, streamlining hunting regulations, to enable joint problem solving, to eliminate wasteful duplication of services and overlapping mandates, to gather data and research on an entire ecosystem basis instead of a small management area.
.1710
These are very significant needs that have been widely identified by scientists and stakeholder processes as a need for the grizzly bear. It is also a need for other large ranging animals, of which the grizzly is just one. I wanted to use the grizzly bear as a species because, if the provisions for transboundary protection were expanded, the grizzly would fall under the act. It certainly is something we would desire and other groups in the country would as well.
In specific terms, the amendment that needs to be made under subclause 3(1) would add a paragraph (c) to include international transboundary species and their habitats. The second action would be under the prohibitions clause to add habitat, not just residence. And under clause 42 we really feel that the highest and the most expansive protection for all listed species should be enabled under transboundary provisions. That includes vulnerable species.
We would encourage you very strongly to ensure that the minister retains authority to implement management plans for vulnerable species by amending subclause 42(1) to include management plans. I remind you that there are no automatic or interim protection measures for vulnerable species, so by making the simple change in subclause 42(1) the minister would retain authority to implement management plans. I would suggest that this is a critical move.
You will note that in Canada and the U.S. the category of a species listing sometimes varies, so what we are looking for is some consistency for measures across Canada and the U.S. so they can truly work together in an effective way on transboundary protection.
There are a couple of other issues. One is that national parks are not listed specifically under the legislation. We could assume that because they're federal lands they're protected. However, given the weak habitat protection provisions for species in this bill, if there is one place where all listed species must be given the highest level of protection, we feel it's in national parks. We are therefore suggesting there should be a blanket provision added to the bill to prevent further habitat destruction for all listed species at risk in national parks.
I only need to refer you to the situation of the grizzly bear in Banff National Park, the numbers of which at the moment are dangerously low due to excessive commercial development. Our minister has firmly taken the reins on that issue and we're very pleased that issue is being turned around.
However, we feel that a clause could be added to the legislation that would automatically amend the National Parks Act - right now, the National Parks Act only prohibits poaching of certain species - with the suggested wording that I've indicated on page 8:
- No habitat of a threatened, endangered or vulnerable species, as defined in Bill C-65, shall be
disturbed, damaged or destroyed in a national park, or a national park reserve.
There are a couple of other points I'd like to make without taking too much time. Regarding the listing process, we feel the federal government is publicly accountable for a scientifically credible listing process. Any political amendments allowed to this process would cause untenable delays, which also cause delays for habitat protection.
On the recovery and management planning clause, this is a critical clause which will not protect Canada's species at risk. It requires developing recovery plans for endangered and threatened species but falls far short when it comes to implementation. While the government must prepare a report outlining when and how it intends to implement a recovery plan, actual regulations have no time line and are entirely up to the minister's discretion. Management plans need significant strengthening under the bill.
.1715
We really feel this bill - and this is certainly the spirit in which our organization and others have engaged in this process - needs to be as preventive as possible. Given that view, we feel it's critical that management plans for vulnerable species be given more clarity in terms of the process. We would encourage that the process for recovery planning also apply to management plans. Right now that is not spelled out.
Finally, the bill does not spell out a process to update recovery or management plans, which is a serious omission. We learn as we go, and if this bill is passed without important amendments to this clause we don't feel Canada will be much further ahead.
I have some specific suggested amendments with language that I will follow up with with the committee in several days. These include on implementation, to amend clause 42 to include a 150-day time line; to strengthen from ``Minister may'' to ``Minister shall'' pass regulations to implement recovery plans and protect critical habitat; and to include that the minister may pass regulations to implement management plans. This would also broaden the transboundary powers I alluded to earlier.
In the second action on management plans, subclause 38(2) and clauses 39, 40, 43 and 44 dealing with recovery plans should be revised to also apply to management plans.
In the third action, we suggest amending recovery and management plans to add a new clause stating that the minister shall amend the recovery or management plan if it is determined that the plan is no longer adequate to protect the species, its critical habitat or provide for its recovery. Clauses 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44 apply to the amendment of recovery plans with appropriate modifications.
I have other comments I will follow up with in writing so I don't take any more of your time here.
The Chairman: You will appreciate that it is difficult to follow what you're saying if we don't have the text as well. So it's important to make your potential legislative amendments available in a form that can be read, rather than picking it up from the transcript.
It is quite helpful to bring forward the issue of national parks because it highlights how easy life would be if we were not in a federal system. In an ideal world we would actually redesign the Constitution to make it possible to protect endangered species rather than having to discover, through ingenuity, a number of ways of fitting endangered species into the Constitution, as we are doing now.
The reality is that the Constitution is what it is and we have to use our ingenuity. It will require a lot of creative thinking in this respect, because in the national parks you have just one jurisdiction and therefore the amendments you are putting forward are straightforward and we will certainly look at them with great attention.
When we go outside the national parks, of course, we can only hope that provincial jurisdictions will pass mirror legislation to the federal one so the two will correspond and reinforce each other and achieve the desired results, as if Canada were a centralized and not a federated unit. So the national parks is an interesting example you have provided us with and we all wish the whole country could be a national park. The passage of this bill would be made much easier.
Mr. Granskou: That could be the next piece of legislation.
.1720
The Chairman: We'll put it on the table at the next federal-provincial gathering, God knows when.
Mr. Riley, please.
Mr. Riley: Thank you for the chance to speak to you in support of this Endangered Species Protection Act. I will try to be brief.
FON is about 65 years old. It has about 15,000 members, with 83 different federated organizations across Ontario belonging to it. It has had a long history of collecting, analysing and publishing information on Ontario's species and its rare species - species at risk.
The FON was one of the three non-governmental organizations that were part of a 1991 review of Ontario's endangered species programs and its legislation. I was a member of that task force and I'm a member of a COSEWIC subcommittee.
There are three things I'd like to touch on here. First is the listing of species by COSEWIC, second is the prohibition clause, and third is the application clause.
The first and most obvious step toward conserving a species at risk is recognizing that it is at risk. You're probably saying this is too obvious. The proposed act certainly indicates that a list will be put together. We recommend amendments so a specific time limit is set for COSEWIC to list all the endangered, threatened and vulnerable species it can. The bill, as currently written, doesn't set a time limit for developing a status report, and as a result there's no timeframe for listing species.
We propose something like a two-year time period to complete the listings of the conservation status of wildlife in Canada. We do recognize a heavy short-term workload would be required, but consider that as an investment in the credibility of the bill.
I'm a member of a subcommittee of COSEWIC that is notoriously slow in getting status reports done and listing species. I'll give you an example. In relation to Ontario species, status reports have been completed for about 120 species over COSEWIC's 18 years. That's six species per year. In addition to those species that have already been evaluated by COSEWIC, Ontario has almost 300 species of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles and vascular plants that are known from five or fewer locations in the province. Almost all of these locations have the same status in the country because of southern Ontario's extreme southern latitude. This is the part of the country where we're getting the most rapid pattern of urbanization and the most habitat loss.
The math is quite simple here. At the present rates of designation, we can expect to have those species with status reports and listed in about 50 years. For this reason, there really should be a time limit set on the ranking of species.
The Ontario and Quebec acts are failing because there's no compulsion to regulate species as being at risk, and in the Ontario case they simply wait for COSEWIC to do status reports before they are willing to regulate. So they blame COSEWIC for the slowness with which they regulate.
There are a number of clauses you've put in place. For example, when a species is listed, a status report would have to be redone on a 10-year cycle. But just do the math. At the present rate of work, that would keep COSEWIC busy just doing those reports. You have time limits for when you have to do recovery plans. That acts as an inhibition bureaucratically to getting things listed.
If there's no requirement to designate following some sort of time schedule, people will look to subclause 19(3), where it says COSEWIC must react within 90 days of getting a request for a designation of a species. If there are no time limits, people are going to take advantage of that, and that's not going to work, because there's no way that COSEWIC is going to be able to react intelligently in a 90-day period.
.1725
I have one more point on COSEWIC. Almost all of COSEWIC's work up to now has been accomplished by technical and scientific subcommittees responsible for various species, and this has been on largely a volunteer basis. No matter how you cut it, it's been largely done by professionals on a volunteer basis. One way of recognizing it would be to put something in here that suggests they are important to the work that has been done. Clause 16 could state that COSEWIC will establish advisory and scientific committees to advise and assist it. Maybe it is obvious that it will do so.
Second, with respect to prohibitions, clauses 31 and 32 are very straightforward. Clause 33 enables the act to extend beyond aquatic species, migratory birds, and federal lands by agreement of the province only where actions have been taken wilfully or knowingly. This limits the application of the act. The words ``wilfully'' and ``knowingly'' should be deleted to permit the minister and a provincial minister to regulate as strongly as the federal act permits where the need arises. I know clause 33 must be giving the provinces and you a great deal of grief. Maybe I'll touch on that a little bit later.
Under prohibitions, because of the experience in Ontario, we recommend the replacement of the term ``residence''. I know this bill at present does not extend a habitat and the fallback has been to identify residences in clauses 32 and 33. I recommend the replacement of that with ``critical habitat'', and I recommend that you provide a definition of critical habitat such as ``the habitat of a species determined by a recovery plan as being essential to the maintenance of a population or individuals of a species at a particular site'', relying on the fact that elsewhere in your bill it asks the recovery plan to identify critical habitat.
Finally, on the application of the bill in clause 3, which I've read many times, our understanding of this is that it applies to all aquatic species and migratory birds and the residences, wherever they occur. Our understanding is that it applies to other wildlife species where their individuals and habitats are found on federal lands.
I understand that in Ontario the federal lands would include federal crown lands and internal waters, which include the waters covered by the Fisheries Act. However, when talking to two lawyers in the past week, I was more or less advised that we may be correct or we may be incorrect in our reading of clause 3, and we won't really know until the bill goes to court and we get some sort of court decision about it.
We're very concerned that the wording of clause 3 of the bill - and much of the bill, for that matter - is unclear and confusing. Some parts of it have the appearance of being deliberately vague. Why isn't it clear which species in what areas are covered by the bill? This is a simple plea for plain language. I know there are turf troubles around some of this stuff, but my kids should be able to read this and understand this. Simplifying this would not be that difficult.
Canada signed on to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. Ontario and Canada both signed the biodiversity strategy. It would be nice if we could take the high road on something like clause 33 and send a message to Canadians that the federal-provincial difficulties around this, which are very obvious, can be overcome. I don't think the public wants to hear that constitutional matters are standing in the way of a good endangered species act and would react negatively to that.
Thank you.
.1730
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Riley.
Let's start now with questions. We have Mr. Forseth, followed by Mr. Steckle, followed by Madame Kraft Sloan. Please go ahead.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome. We apologize for the big interruption, but that's the way Parliament goes sometimes.
I was interested to hear each of you describe the grassroots nature of your organizations, the affiliations you have with other non-government agencies, and perhaps how widely based the support for your organizations is. One of the things we have been certainly hearing about at this committee is the whole issue of habitat. We've been hearing that protection of habitat is really the critical issue for saving endangered species.
Given the nature of your organizations, I'm wondering if you would be willing to make some kind of national push with your other non-governmental organizations in an effort to save habitat directly, such as using the facilities that you have to be in contact with citizens to perhaps do some fund-raising to compensate private landowners who are facing direct financial loss or severe financial injury.
We know that the bill is couched in language of community cooperation, and recovery plans are going to involve the local citizen. This is where people power comes in. But I'm afraid that unless we have a larger arm of love to pull in the private landowner, especially the small farmer and so on, this piece of legislation is going to be seen as big brother, as a threat to the small family business. It's going to be opposed rather than seen as something we all want to do together.
I think this is where organizations such as yours that are in contact with all the things you have out in the community can really touch that public goodwill.
You have methods to raise funds for the survival of your own organizations, but what about maybe cooperating to develop, say, an emergency fund to help landowners who may want to save the habitat or save a particular species, but who need the larger community's help to do so? That may involve buying out a small family business or buying some land and giving it over to the local municipality to be added on to a park or whatever, or allowing the private landowners to cut back their enterprises, but there's financial loss involved.
I'm just wondering about that whole outside-of-government approach that could even provide direct emergency funds for those who are about to be foreclosed on and so on. I'd like all of you to address that.
The Chairman: Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley: I don't know of any instances in Ontario where anyone's business has gone under on the basis of endangered species. The only situation that has arisen in the last little while is a situation with the loggerhead shrike, and one of our clubs provided money as compensation to a landowner so that he was compensated for the loss of the hay crop where the loggerhead shrike occurs.
We maintain fifteen nature reserves. Eight of our clubs maintain multiple nature reserves. We have the largest private nature reserve system in Ontario. We're out there all the time dealing with landowners and talking about concrete ways of making it work in their local communities. I can give you examples of our nature reserves that have a number of species that, in Canada, occur only at those reserves. So we're putting out around this, and I want you to know that. Many local groups are doing so.
.1735
Mr. Forseth: That's really good to hear.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Ms Granskou: I think that's a very important point. That's the spirit in which we want to work with this act.
Our goal is this. The act, if it's effective and provides leadership, can then help all of us in getting down to the work of implementing and working together.
I'll just give you one example of an effort we're involved with in southwestern Alberta. We are working with the cattlemen to establish a compensation fund for wolves taking livestock. It's not fully developed, but that's the kind of work we want to develop.
What we need is endangered species legislation to help us carry through on those kinds of programs. They are very important. We need leadership in order to work in the best way possible. That would be my overall comment.
Mr. Ewins: I would add to both of those comments that a number of provinces now have begun to pass conservation easement legislation. There is a whole range of other incentives that will really facilitate this community partnership for solution-finding rather than having confrontations before you come to the final step, which is the financial compensation.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: As a supplementary, I'm beginning to hear from some people on the operation of the Ontario legislation. One lady claims that she lost her land completely, there are some others who have been talking about a particular loss, and so on. So we want to find out what that really is.
I'm suggesting that we're hearing this mantra from people that there's going to be no expropriation without compensation. They expect the government to pay and all that. Often that's not the way to do things. You have to do things in a voluntary, non-government way. We have to explore how we can help this legislation get on down the track by a more voluntary approach.
Mr. Riley: One of the things the present government has done that has been extremely beneficial has been the change in the Income Tax Act to promote donations of ecologically sensitive lands. This in itself has triggered a lot more opportunities at the local level to let the private sector operate on conservation issues related to land. We're now working with David Crombie and his sub-panels to deal with some of the property tax issues, but the donation part of it has now largely been taken care of.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. Mr. Steckle, please.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I want to thank the panel members for appearing this afternoon. Certainly we gave pause for you to take stock as to where we might go in the second half. Now we're into that part, so perhaps we can get on with this.
I want to address my first question to Pete. I think in one of your opening comments you suggested that you were not an animal rights groups. What connotation were we to take from that?
Mr. Ewins: It's a confusion that people often make between the World Wildlife Fund and some of the other groups that are more oriented toward animal rights. So I really want to clarify that in case anybody here thought we were Greenpeace or the Animal Alliance of Canada or any of these humane societies.
The World Wildlife Fund is focused, as I mentioned, primarily on the sustainable use of resources, which includes hunting, fishing and shooting, provided there's good conservation biology at the root of that to make sure the species is there for our grandchildren.
Mr. Steckle: That clarifies it. I thought that should be on the record, because I think we're here to look after endangered species, not to do some of the other things that some of these interest groups want. So I appreciate that.
Worldwide you have raised a lot of money. Is this done through memberships or is it done through gratuities from people out of the goodness of their hearts? How do you raise your funds?
Mr. Ewins: This alludes to Paul Forseth's question, actually.
The World Wildlife Fund is probably the most successful organization in the world at raising money. I think it's about a 50-50 split - certainly that's the way in Canada - between membership, 50%, and the corporate sector, 50%, which is either philanthropy, marketing or corporate sponsorship.
There are many different funds within the World Wildlife Fund Canada whereby money is raised from corporate partners and put back into exactly what Paul is talking about. The whole aim is to use the minimum for administration and put it all back onto the ground to allow people to do things that are going to help endangered species.
.1740
Mr. Steckle: So similarly, you would run a parallel program to that of Ducks Unlimited, or a similar one to that, in a different way. But similarly, you would do those kinds of things.
Mr. Ewins: We already do in different parts of the country.
Mr. Steckle: Do you share in any programs with Ducks Unlimited?
Mr. Ewins: I think we have done so, but I couldn't tell you a specific example right now. I'm sorry.
Mr. Steckle: That's okay.
Now, Mary, you mentioned road closures. I believe you were referring to the grizzly bear and where road closures are needed to save the bear. I also believe you were referring to parks.
Were you referring to other roads that may have to be closed or where the federal government would become involved? I was just wondering what the connection would be with an organization recommending road closures and how that would impact.
Ms Granskou: On wildlife specifically?
Mr. Steckle: Yes.
Ms Granskou: Roads are called a mortality sink for species like grizzly bears. That means there's a net loss around roads. Species that are habituated to undisturbed areas, like the grizzly, either avoid roads - scientific evidence has shown that they sometimes do not go within a kilometre of a road - or they become habituated to humans, so their mortality is three times the natural level.
So the closure of roads is important both from the impact of roads and the access for people going into the backcountry. There may be so many roads that there is so much access. It's also very difficult to monitor any hunting activities where there is illegal hunting particularly, which is a problem in a number of areas.
So roads are important now. I'll give you an example of a voluntary program, because we are talking about voluntary measures. We are working very closely - WWF is assisting as well - with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers on a unique, new style of development and access, such as roads for oil and gas in northeastern British Columbia. The principle behind this effort is that we want to limit access for the benefit of species.
Mr. Steckle: I think it would be our goal, all of us as a government particularly, to create legislation that would protect species. That's the reason for this. I'm afraid we'd be treading on pretty dangerous ground with the very kinds of things feared by those people who are apprehensive of the legislation. They feel we would enter into kinds of legislation in which we would be forcing these kinds of things.
Roads are paramount for industry and people to travel on. It's not going to curb the poachers, because there's still a road base there. If people want to get in, they're going to get in. So I think we have to be careful.
Ms Granskou: Yes, you raise a good point. On the map that I showed of southeastern B.C., those are not all primary roads. Some are secondary, and some are tertiary. They're not all in active use.
There are governments, such as those in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, to name two examples, closing roads that are either not necessary or not in use. They're doing it simply by barricading the entrances.
It is a program aimed at protecting wildlife. It's supported by organizations involved in hunting and guide outfitting, such as in northeastern British Columbia. It's really a measure to ensure that when roads are no longer primarily in use, their primary function has passed, perhaps we should look at putting the land back for wildlife habitat.
The other measure to do with roads that we are putting into place in Banff National Park with the support of the Minister of Transport and his ministry is our engagement in developing wildlife overpasses over the Trans-Canada Highway. It's quite a unique solution. We hope it's one that's effective to allow for the passage of grizzlies and wolves over the Trans-Canada Highway. From a cost perspective, it's not extraordinarily expensive, so for transport it's within the realm of what's possible.
Mr. Steckle: I thought we should have some clarity on that. I assume that as we go through the hearings, we will hear this again in some form.
To you, John, on COSEWIC, I'm hearing - I've heard this a number of times as we've been hearing witnesses - that it's a slow process for COSEWIC to bring forward species to be put on the endangered or threatened list, whatever category we want to place them in. Is COSEWIC working? I have to wonder, after what you said this afternoon, whether COSEWIC is really a very effective organization.
.1745
Mr. Riley: Within the resources it has had, I think it's remarkably effective. It has not had many resources. There are a couple of ways of dealing with the pace of it.
This was the subject matter of a June meeting of the wildlife directors in Toronto, where a proposal was put forward that if in fact you can't bring a time limit that says these will be listed in two years, then there is a fall-back position, which would be in the same way that you would deal with three other items you think should be on the public registry in the act. You put forward a fourth piece, a candidates list, to go on the public registry.
Every one of the provinces of Canada now, and COSEWIC itself, uses a system of conservation ranking that has now been applied throughout North, Central, and South America. This was originally developed by the U.S. Nature Conservancy. It's the global, national and sub-national ranking system. It's a piece of cake to put in place. All the calculations and data assembly have been completed.
It's a matter of maybe bringing that into play in support of COSEWIC so that it's clear to people in the public that maybe we haven't got to the point of doing the most thorough job we need to in terms of a status report and a final ranking under the legislation, but we do know what the candidates are. There's a way of doing that.
Mr. Steckle: So the resources are the underlying factor why things haven't moved more quickly. If the resources were to be found -
Mr. Riley: That's right, Paul.
Mr. Steckle: - you would see it working more.
This my last comment. I want you to think about this. In terms of jurisdiction, Great Lakes fish come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the predators of those fish, lamprey, are the jurisdiction of the federal government. Isn't there something strange about that? When it comes to the control of the predators of the fish, the federal government is responsible.
Mr. Riley: So the federal Fisheries Act does not apply to the Great Lakes.
Mr. Steckle: It does not apply in terms of the management of those fish stocks. It's a provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): It has been delegated.
Mr. Riley: It has been delegated. That's what I was getting at. I think it's in the act, but it has been delegated.
It gets back to my comment about the clarity of the wording and the difficulty that the public or even someone like me has in understanding the application.
Curiously enough, all of Ontario's fish species have status reports done. It's the only group of biota that has been thoroughly worked over. People feel confident that we know what is threatened and endangered.
I know you have a jurisdictional problem. I think the issue is to be clear about it. Express it clearly so people know what the issue is so that it's not deferred for judicial review or something like this.
Mr. Steckle: That's something that, for the record, we ought to think about as we proceed through this.
That's my last comment at this point in time.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Steckle. Before recognizing the next member, I would like to say that we are rapidly approaching 6 p.m. We have witnesses at 7 p.m. Perhaps we could reconvene at 7:15 p.m. just to have some breathing space.
Would it be agreeable to the members of the committee if we had three brief interventions and then we'll adjourn for dinner? In that case, the first one is Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I actually have a late show, as does Mr. Knutson, so we will probably have to adjourn sooner.
You have had a great deal of discussion around the definition of habitat. I'm wondering if you have a definition of habitat that you can put forward for the committee.
Ms Granskou: I'd be happy to provide a definition of habitat that's drawn from the Australian endangered species act. Habitat means the area of type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs, or formerly occurred and has the potential to be reintroduced.
.1750
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are there other jurisdictions around the world that have endangered species legislation that includes a definition of habitat? How would those definitions be similar to or different from this one?
Ms Granskou: This definition includes not only where organisms or populations naturally occur presently, but also where they were formerly occupied. So it also captures the issues related to extirpated species that no longer occur in Canada, like the swift fox, where there is a tremendous need to preserve the species through recovery efforts. That would be a major difference in the definitions, other than language. I think the major difference is whether it applies to formerly occurring habitats.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The other question I have is with regard to the organizational structure of COSEWIC. The legislation talks about a board of five to nine members. It's my understanding that this alters the organization of COSEWIC, and I'm wondering what your reaction to that might be, whether it's positive or negative. Do you see problems or opportunities with this change?
Mr. Ewins: I tried to cover that towards the end of my presentation. Basically, it's incredibly important, if the minister is going to appoint members to COSEWIC, that there be some formalized recognition of representation in the particular clause here. I stress that there should be less than 50% or no more than 50% government scientists and representatives from academia, the Royal Society and those sorts of learned bodies, and also experts from the non-governmental conservation field, because that is the grassroots side of conservation.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The Government of Quebec has endangered species legislation. Do you know what their record of listing is? I think the decision resides with cabinet or Governor in Council as to making the final listing.
Ms Granskou: Quebec has had an endangered species act that is very strong in a number of ways. But in terms of the listing process, it's somewhat analogous to what's being proposed here that we have concerns about, and that is political discretion to change the list. It's been in effect since 1990, I believe, and not a single endangered species has been listed yet under that act.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is there a reason for that?
Ms Granskou: Our reading is that if you have a political overlay, you delay the listing process. We feel the minister should be an active participant in the recovery efforts, but in terms of the COSEWIC review and the scientific determination of which species are on the list, the minister should be publicly accountable to have a scientifically credible and streamlined process.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are there species on the COSEWIC list for being endangered or threatened that are in the province of Quebec?
Ms Granskou: I believe there are about ten species that would apply.
The Chairman: If one were to ask what is one of the best kept secrets in the country, probably the answer would be COSEWIC.
Mr. Finlay, you are the last.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have enjoyed being with you again. I have three short questions.
You said the Vancouver Island marmot is not covered by this bill at all, and you said the reason is that it's a mammal and it's only on Vancouver Island. Explain that to me. Is there no federal land on Vancouver Island?
Mr. Ewins: There is, but I don't believe the Vancouver Island marmot treads on it. It lives on non-federal land on Vancouver Island, so it doesn't qualify there. It doesn't qualify under clause 33, as some other species do because they either move across the international border or their range extends. It's endemic to Vancouver Island.
.1755
Mr. Finlay: Okay. Then you said the western prairie fringed orchid is not covered at all because it's a plant. So plants aren't covered by.... Plants aren't a species under this bill.
Mr. Ewins: Unless they occur on federal land. But clause 33 is the one that would really relate to this. It occurs in places owned by farmers and private people, not national parks. Clause 33 does not relate to plants. It relates only to animals. That's the transboundary one, which would catch this, but it's cleverly worded so plants aren't included in it. That's quite a large number of species.
Mr. Finlay: In the information I got from the researcher it says, in outlining Bill C-65, that it is seen as offering protection for about 40% of the species currently on the COSEWIC list and as covering about 60% of the territory of Canada. But you say subclause (2) should be removed entirely, since it means the bill would apply only to federal lands, which cover only 4% of the non-marine area of Canada. One says 60%, you say 4%. There has to be some explanation.
Mr. Ewins: The answer is that when you draw the map around Canada to 200 miles, along all three shorelines, you increase the effective jurisdictional area of Canada by a staggering 55%; and 55% plus 4% is basically 60%.
Mr. Forseth: It's only 1% in British Columbia, within the province.
Mr. Finlay: So ``territory'' means territorial waters as well.
Mr. Ewins: That's right, because the minister extended it out to the economic exclusion zone. That's a lot of seabed where there aren't a lot of species.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is that all?
Mr. Finlay: Oh, I could go on. I have an obvious question.
The Chairman: We thought you wanted to comment.
Mr. Finlay: If it applies to so few of our species, then why do we call it an endangered species bill? What does it mean? Did the people who drafted this thing know what we wanted, or did they know what we didn't want, or are they afraid of the Constitution? When are we going to get something that makes sense? This doesn't make sense.
An hon. member: You get used to it.
Mr. Finlay: It doesn't. It doesn't at all.
The Chairman: Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley: I occasioned a few years ago to be involved with a couple of colleagues who discovered a salamander in Ontario for the first time. It happened to be where Sir Adam Beck III is going to be built. It's a $3.5 billion project in the Niagara Gorge. So we went to Ontario Hydro and said, we have a little problem here. It's the only place it occurs in Ontario. ``Is it endangered?'' Yes, it's endangered.
We went to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which was involved in doing a status report. The status report never got submitted to COSEWIC. It never got officially listed as a species. However, the plans were adjusted accordingly.
I can't overstate the public and the general feeling of goodwill towards species that are obviously endangered. It's what gets me back to my pitch about getting the lists out there, getting the public to know which ones are at threat, because there's a lot of goodwill and there are a lot of alternative mechanisms at the local level that can be brought to bear to conserve species long before you get into recovery plans and long before you get into the details of punishment. It's really at the listing level that some progress and leadership can be shown through this bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Steckle has one final question.
Mr. Steckle: I have just a short question. This was a big, big project that could have been stopped because of a little salamander. We all agree salamanders should survive. We should make sure this species doesn't go extinct. Would we not then be advised to take that salamander and all his friends and all those who may be of that species and move them? Would it not be a lot -
Mr. Riley: Quite right. That may have been the next fallback position. But creative engineering came into play and it didn't have to be looked at as an alternative. That's often the case.
.1800
Mr. Steckle: I raise that because in the federal legislation, even with land drainage in the province of Ontario, if just one little fish was found and MNR in Ontario found that little fish, they could bring in Fisheries and Oceans and literally hold up drainage works for years.
Now, there has to be some common sense. This fish happened to be there because he got lost, but he was in an area where spawning never took place. The fathers couldn't live there because one fish and they were out of food...so they had to move on. This was just -
Mr. Riley: Oh, so you're not talking about the Endangered Species Act. You're talking about -
Mr. Steckle: No, but I'm saying how ridiculous -
Mr. Riley: - the federal Fisheries Act delegated to the province.
Mr. Steckle: I know, but I'm saying this is how ridiculous some of our legislation becomes. So let's make sure we don't become silly about things.
The Chairman: I thought you had a short question.
Mr. Steckle: My advice would be to move this salamander and all his friends to another area.
The Chairman: We thank you very much indeed. This was very informative and educational.
We meet at 7:15 p.m. The meeting is adjourned.