[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 4, 1997

.0839

[Translation]

The Chairman: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Today we are studying Bill C-65.

.0840

We are very pleased to welcome the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Slater, who will be making a brief speech in French, I am sure, following which we will ask him some questions. If you prefer, we can start by hearing from all the witnesses and question them all at once. Which do you prefer? That we should hear from all the witnesses first? Fine.

[English]

Can I invite the other witnesses to the table, please. We will hear both presentations, and then we will have the questions at the same time.

From the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, I believe we have Peter Doris; and from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, David Armitage and Paul Verkley. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Slater, would you like to start.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert W. Slater (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm joined at the table by Steven Curtis, the associate director general for the Canadian Wildlife Service. As the chair said, we're here to answer questions, but I wonder if I could just make a couple of brief points before doing so.

Everybody in this room is interested in and committed to efforts to protect endangered species. However, I suspect that each one of us comes to this challenge from a slightly different perspective.

I want to explain the perspective of somebody who sits behind the desk that is labelled ``Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service''. That job requires a perspective that takes into account, first, the global Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, which obliged us, as a set of nations, to conserve, to use and to share the benefits of natural resources of living things. It marked an important change in that what had previously been considered exclusively sovereign resources now had to be managed within the context of a global arrangement. A Canadian tree was suddenly seen as being a significant global resource, an ecological resource for the world. In fact, when it was reviewing the Biodiversity Convention, this committee was the first agency of Parliament that recommended that Canada should develop endangered species legislation in order to fulfil, in part, its obligations under that convention.

The second point of context I'd mention is that of wildlife management. Wildlife management in this country is an interesting and very effective form of public policy management. It is not an authoritarian form of management. There is no single dominant player in the business of wildlife management in this country. It is undertaken very much as a network, a sharing of common interests, by a whole array of players that extends from government to non-government organizations, to aboriginal peoples, to universities, to private landowners, to corporate landowners. It's truly an impressive network of interests, and it is indeed that network of interests that has been very effective in reducing the number of species that have become endangered.

.0845

I guess we could in fact recognize that, in one sense, it is as a measure of failure of that system that species become endangered. At the same time, early recognition and rapid, effective remedial action can be seen as a measure of the success of that same system. It is through this network arrangement for the governance of wildlife in this country that we attach such importance to the federal-provincial accord, the national accord for the protection of endangered species, because that's the context for that accord. That accord, in our minds, is extremely important in bringing the strengths and capacities of that network to bear upon the issue of endangered species. Building upon that work has been under way over the past 25 years through the organizations that you have met, such as COSEWIC. You have also met organizations such as RENEW, from whom you have heard success stories about how they have actually renewed, restored and recovered threatened species in the past.

In the circumstances that we currently face, we all acknowledge that while the network is important and is doing well, it needs greater strength. Part of that greater strength must come from federal legislation in the area of endangered species protection. That is what you have been discussing in your hearings, and that's the purpose of this morning's discussion.

I'll say no more other than to say that I welcome the opportunity to attempt to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll then turn to you people, and whoever wishes to make the presentation. Would you introduce yourself, please.

Mr. Paul Verkley (Member, Board of Directors (Perth North), Ontario Federation of Agriculture): Thank you. I'm Paul Verkley. I'm with the Federation of Agriculture, but first I'm a farmer and a landowner. I run a dairy farm in Perth County, Ontario, near Stratford, and I milk 200 cows. I certainly may be one of the bigger operators in the county, and I'm certainly there on a daily basis.

This whole perspective I'll bring to this committee is that we hear a lot about wildlife management and endangered species. As landowners, our interpretation is that you're trying to manage the endangered species by managing the operators and the landowners. The conflict always arises as soon as some other body comes in to manage us as landowners. What did we do wrong in the first place? Ultimately, if we're trying to protect the endangered species, why is it that you do it through my resources? Why do I have to change my practices? In this interpretation, we lose the issue of protecting that resource.

In Ontario, over the last number of years, I think we've shown that we're very interested in the environment and in endangered species - and in wildlife in general - as cohabitants of the land that we use. We've been able to set aside some of these wild areas just because it's the right thing to do. I think farmers have a very high standard, and a very high voluntary standard. If we look at the native Carolinian forest, it is still there in southern Ontario because the owners felt it was a good thing to have it there. It certainly wasn't done through government initiative.

Looking at clause 33, although it really is aimed at federal lands, it doesn't give a whole lot of comfort to operators when they see the kind of language that's used: everything will be done to protect the habitat of certain species. Through the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, our attitude has always been to work cooperatively to try to up the average management of the Ontario farm. On a voluntary level, we'll get far better compliance in general than we would by putting in a minimum standard.

.0850

If we're given a minimum standard, there are an awful lot of farmers who'll drop down to that minimum standard if they feel that's their obligation. A standard is a way of saying they aren't really trusted, that it's your resource. The farmer says that he's one who's trying to make a living out of it. He realizes it's part of the greater community, but he's going to be there managing things at a day-to-day level, and you're not coming in with anything but a law. If you come in with dollars, resources, some goals that we can all set down, I think you'll find that farmers' goals are probably set a lot higher than what the community would expect from them.

In getting programs, be it through Ducks Unlimited or whatever, we've always been able to find landowners in Ontario who will cooperate and will do a good job. We've seen some very good stream rehabilitation projects. As an example, near Stratford there's one on the upper Avon. With a few government dollars, and in working with some of the community environmental groups, we have found some farmers who have been very proactive. It's something that's done farm by farm, landowner by landowner, and they are getting marvellous results. We're finding that the positive impact on the stream tends to lead both the downstream or upstream neighbours to come onside in time.

I think we've found that a few federal commitments to the environment have picked up a lot of partners in Ontario. The Environmental Farm Plan is a prime example. Through some Green Plan funding, it has now turned into a program through which over 7,000 farmers have gone through the two-day workshops. They are filling out a complete voluntary environmental audit of their farming operations. I challenge you to find another jurisdiction where you'd have that percentage of farmers actually putting down on paper the shortcomings and the challenges to the environment that they see in their farming operations.

I think that's also a reflection of the attitude that has developed within the farm community, the attitude that governments are there to work with us to achieve some of these practical goals as a group, when we have sat down and done everything on a consensus basis. We've had talks with Agricultural Canada, with Environment Canada, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, with a lot of provincial ministry people, and with all the farm organizations. We sit down and come to agreements. We draw targets. We say what situations are doable. Do we focus our energies on education? We leave the freedom up to the farm operator.

Looking at this bill, it says that you shall restrict farming practices where you feel farmers shouldn't be encroaching on endangered species. Farmers aren't the ones who have caused endangered species to disappear over the last number of years. We certainly had a major impact on the environment as we found it 200 years ago, but in today's situation I think there are a lot more positive stories out there within the farming communities than there are negative ones. I think we're the kind of people who have shown that a cooperative approach, one with some consultation and one that sets some goals, is probably better.

The Chairman: Are there any further interventions? Sorry, I didn't introduce you. Would you please do that for me?

Ms Sheila Forsyth (Executive Director, National Agriculture Environment Committee): My name is Sheila Forsyth. I'm accompanying the group from Ontario, but I represent a national farm organization called the National Agriculture Environment Committee.

I've been involved in this area for quite some time as a member of the Task Force on Endangered Species Conservation. With your indulgence, I wanted to take this opportunity to reflect on the past year and a half and bring some notes from a personal perspective, a bit like Bob has done as the ADM. That's because, in the end, I ended up being the pen for the task force report, which I understand you have used quite freely to work on the elements of the bill. With your indulgence, could I make a few notes on perspective and be a philosopher for a few minutes?

From a personal perspective, I hope most of the comments I make will be true to the values of my constituents, who are the farmers of this country. But I may diverge on a few points from a personal perspective, which they may not necessarily agree with. But I'm sure they'll let me get away with it for a few minutes.

.0855

I ask that all of us at this table lean back in our chairs and take a slightly different perspective for a moment. Next week, I understand, you go into a very close examination of the words, the jots and tittles, of this bill. I would like you to lean back with me just a bit and look at some ``p'' words as you go to do that.

The first word you've asked us to talk about today is indeed ``perspective''. From the close-up perspective of endangered species, we cannot help but be impassioned and hopeful that an act will solve all the problems you have heard about and we've talked about for the last year or so. But I ask you to look at it from the big-picture perspective. Endangered species are essentially an indication of biodiversity under pressure. Whether this is a natural pressure or a human pressure or a combination of pressures we can't absolutely be certain, and I certainly can't be a judge and I'm not qualified to make that judgment call.

But there is something we can do about it. Endangered species are one piece of the pie, a part of the puzzle that includes partnerships, preventive measures, and practical solutions. I'll give you just a few pointers on where I see that coming from.

You've heard for some time the passion of people who have been involved for several years in this crusade to bring protection of species to Canada. You've heard the pleas from farmers, from miners, from foresters, and from others that they need to make a living, are willing to help but need assurance that they will have some certainty in the future not of persecution but of partnerships, practical help, and information sharing. You have been told about the concerns that the people of the land may actually pull back support from conservation programs if it appears they will be pinched. This should not be sloughed off as a redneck approach or parsimonious. This is serious business. This is a real concern. Partnerships are the key here. As you deliberate, do not neglect this point.

We have talked and argued a lot about the lack of coverage of habitat in these deliberations, the lack of a so-called 100% solution. This has been the stuff of posturing and lobbying by numerous groups. The political will and the collective will of the politicians at the federal, provincial, international, and personal level are your 100% solution. The solution that encourages partnerships and buy-in is your best one. This I believe recognizes the current jurisdictional and private landowners' desires to manage their properties to the best of their abilities. That, I believe, is your 100% solution.

Some of the arguments, frankly, that have been given have been red herrings, designed to inflame passions. How does one protect a being in the long term without protecting its habitat, I ask? There is of course no other way but to protect the habitat.

What the practical-minded people have been trying to point out is several things. If you want to list a species as a red flag, as an alert, then the earlier you do this the better. If part of the proof to list is that you must know everything there is about the habitat intimately, then few listings will be made. If, however, a recovery team is tasked with finding the best solution, hopefully on the basis of a multi-species, ecosystem-based approach, this is the place to take the time to investigate the cause and find the habitat fully, in partnerships with those all around.

We have here sometimes argued or urged for a preventive approach, a stepping back even further than endangered species to conservation approaches in general. You've heard some of the points Mr. Verkley has made today about the Ontario efforts to work with conservation groups and others in the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, which is a stepping back, a preventive approach. A great deal of the work done by farmers is for ecosystems that do not necessarily have endangered species on them. They have songbirds, they have waterfowl, they have mammals or plant species. I've said here before, at least in our briefs, that the best thing that could happen to this bill is to have it repealed in a number of years because it's not being used. This should be in your minds as well as you carry on in your deliberations.

I believe no one human group has the corner on connectedness to the earth or to the land. While many may view the Genesis account as a total myth, regardless, it does lay out a few principles. It says we are part of this creation, not separate from it. We were explicitly made from the dirt. We were instructed to have, as the Bible says, dominion over the creation.

.0900

Some have misinterpreted that to mean dominate the creation, but the words are not ``to dominate''. The words are to reign, to have dominion, to rule, to have lordship, to have sovereignty over the creation.

I'll play with the words a little bit here. My strength isn't Hebrew but Latin. There are two Latin words that come to mind when I think of dominion. One of them is domicilium or home, and the other one is dominus or master.

If we are to be the master of our homes, our planet, our habitat, which we share with many other creatures, then my model is a certain person that's in the New Testament, a person called Jesus Christ. If he was a master of the planet, then he gave his life sacrificially for it. If that's a model of a master or having dominion, then I think that's a pretty good model of how to have stewardship and how to take care of the creatures that are around.

Adam, in the myth or the story, if you want to believe it as a story, or if you want to believe it wholeheartedly, named each one of the creatures. He wasn't flippant or careless about it, but he matched them with the characteristics. He wasn't dominating, but he showed loving leadership.

We think of coaches and teachers or even politicians who have led us with integrity and have dominion over us. In this dominion of Canada, we are tasked with compassionate dominion or stewardship of this issue of endangered species.

I think we've essentially signed a pact or a partnership at this creation time, at Genesis, and I extend this partnership to modern times. Some Canadians own land; others do not. Those who do not own land feel it is their duty to be the conscience for those who do have land to protect the resource base. This is fine and expected. Partnerships are just that - partnerships, and equal giving and equal taking. If all Canadians want to benefit, protected by diversity, they really need to learn how to help.

Does a farmer give up a crucial hectarage without a peep, or would it be possible to compensate? Is there a practical solution, a way to manage that still allows sustainable use of the land that is compatible with the lifestyle of the species? What incentives, tax changes, or changes to insurance and loan structures are needed?

A small group of us are trying to work on that issue for you. A small group of task force members and other folk are meeting at the end of this month to try to pull together a think piece, a paper for you, to further this issue of incentives, other measures, economic instruments, and you will see more of that in the next little while.

Finally, I urge you to find the pathway for this bill that uses these ``p'' watchwords: preventive, practicality, partnerships with the respect for the needs of all, and finally, a passion to do the right thing. I leave this large task in your hands.

Excuse me if it sounds like a sermon, but it was done quite late last night and I just thought....

The Chairman: It didn't sound like a sermon at all, and if it did, this committee is accustomed to them. So don't worry.

So who would like to go first - Madame Guay, peut-être?

[Translation]

Ms Guay (Laurentides): I thought other witnesses were going to speak. Good morning to all of you.

Mr. Slater, you pointed out in your presentation that during the past 25 years, agreements had been signed between various government jurisdictions for the protection of endangered species.

Since we began hearing witnesses, we've noted that clause 33 is stirring up a lot of opposition from provinces and from farmers. I'd like your opinion on this. What can we do?

There is no doubt that amendments will have to be made to this bill if it is to be effective in light of the different jurisdictions involved.

.0905

I would also refer you to clauses 56 to 75, which allow an ordinary citizen to take legal action; these too are causing quite a stir. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. What changes should we make to improve the bill so as to have an effective piece of legislation that will be accepted by all jurisdictions as well as by farmers and other stakeholders?

[English]

Mr. Slater: Thank you, Madame Guay. I think it's a reference to clause 33. The clause is one that was designed to meet the goal that the minister clearly stated when he was meeting with the provinces on the signing of the national accord on the protection of endangered species in Charlottetown on October 2. At that time he was quite clear in saying that in signing the accord he was committing to complementary legislation and programs between governments and amongst governments. He indicated that insofar as international matters were concerned, the federal government would have a role to play.

Insofar as a species required international cooperation for its survival, he said that the federal government would exercise a role in international cooperation. The route we have taken to try to meet that goal is as you see it in clause 33.

In other words, what we have tried to do is define a cross-border species as being the sort of species that requires international cooperation. We also tried to establish a process for its application that would allow us to take advantage, to complement provincial governments that had equivalent authorities and were prepared to exercise those authorities.

In application, it is our view that clause 33 would not give rise to any overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments but was specifically designed to avoid that in application.

As you point out, there has been a large variety of views on the utility of this particular clause. There are some who have argued that it is inadequate, in that the authority available to the minister can only be exercised by regulation and is not automatic. It says the minister ``may'' issue regulations.

On the other hand, there are those who say that the way a cross-border species is defined covers essentially all animal species in Canada because it talks about a species that has a range extending across a border. There are very few animal species that you cannot find in both Canada and the United States, therefore the range could be argued to extend across a border even though individual members of the species may never actually cross the border.

I think we've recognized that was not the intention. It was very much to deal with those species that require international cooperation for their survival. If there are ways the committee can find to deal with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at this and at the same time maintain the objective of defining a clear and precise federal role on those species that require international cooperation, then I think that would be extremely useful.

.0910

Mr. Peter Doris (Special Project Officer, Ontario Cattlemen's Association): I'd like to add a further comment on that. If you're looking for suggestions to keep the federal government's role with respect to species that cross a border and have a range that goes across the border, I guess my suggestion would be that paragraph 33(b) be reworded to state that regulations only be introduced after consultation with the provinces has failed to achieve the desired objectives to protect or enhance the habitat of the species in question.

I'd see this being useful for two purposes. The first one is that it gets away from the jurisdictional dispute between the provinces. The second thing is that it probably sets out a much more user-friendly and proactive process than a potentially confrontational or legislative approach that tends to get the ire of landowners. Thank you.

The Chairman: Regional consultation is already in the bill right now, for the minister to consult the provinces.

Mr. Doris: It says ``consult'', but I guess my question is.... ``Consult'' could be a letter to the minister saying we are going to introduce legislation regarding species X.

The Chairman: That is not consultation. That is a piece of information.

Mr. Doris: Sorry.

The Chairman: That is no longer consultation when it is phrased in that manner.

Mr. Doris: If I were a lawyer I'm sure I could debate with you on what exactly is consultation. In my way of thinking, that form of consultation or notification can basically be a very last minute thing with really no significant meaning at all.

The Chairman: It would be a misuse of the term ``consultation'', though.

Mr. Doris: Yes. It does very much depend on the meaning of the term ``consultation''.

The Chairman: Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms Guay: In any case, I think clause 33 must be redrafted to take the various jurisdictions into account, so as to avoid never-ending legal battles.

You also discussed this clause, Mr. Verkley. I would like to know what you think about the way things work in Ontario at the moment, because you do have legislation on endangered species. Do you think the endangered species are properly protected by this legislation? Could you explain how it works? How long have you had the legislation in Ontario? I would like to hear a little more about this, please.

[English]

Mr. Verkley: I think basically the concept is that it must be working, because it doesn't seem to cause a problem. I think the farmers look more toward what the potential threat is, and when they hear that there could be restrictions placed on their farming...and we haven't had clear instances of where management has been proven to be a negative thing to endangered species.

Bring forward best management practices on forestry and habitat management. Again, those kinds of approaches.... Clause 33 has caused quite a stir, and the kind of wording feedback you get is why are they trying to do that? If they're going to come down and restrict my ability to make a living on this farm, then maybe it's a race as to who finds that endangered species first. All of a sudden, what should be a positive thing, where we strive toward a common goal of maintaining a species - when that becomes very negative to my personal operation, then it goes into a different mode of thought for the producer. If we then lose complete control to manage that resource, at which we've felt we've been doing a reasonably good job, then I'll do whatever it takes as a manager to eliminate that negative possibility.

I think it has so much more to do with the mindset of the producer, and I think we have enough instances in the U.S. where this has taken place. It's that coffee-shop talk attitude. As I said, some of these minor watersheds where there has been some rehabilitation, some reforestation, buffer strips - you name it - have been seen as a very positive thing within the community as we relate to the urban shared users of the resource and basically the esthetics of that farming operation.

.0915

In a lot of cases that is the one part of the farming operation the owners see as very much contributing to the community and the fabric of society. They get this feeling of well-being, that they're doing their share. Then to turn around and say you may be doing your share, but if you happen to get one of those endangered species there we're going to come in and take over the management of that bird, or animal, or endangered species.... Suddenly all the good work, all the management over the years, has just encouraged the possibility of yours being the spot where that species finds that habitat.

[Translation]

Ms Guay: I would like to point out to the Assistant Deputy Minister that he forgot to answer one of my questions. It was about the public, and I would like an answer to it, please.

[English]

Mr. Slater: We saw the provisions for dealing with the citizen's suit as very much in keeping with the overall tone of the legislative proposal.

Bill C-65 is one of the most open and transparent pieces of federal legislation - certainly in the environment field - that I know of. It is very open in that all information that is made available through and under the provisions of the legislation are readily accessible to the public. As you know, as you go through the bill there is a whole series of deadlines for action; within so many days, such and such must be done upon the filing of such and such a piece of information.

I think the intent there was to recognize that this was very much a piece of legislation that has very substantial public interest and that ultimately the public interest in the protection of endangered species would afford the greatest protection for endangered species, because everybody would know, as best as we could provide it, what was happening.

We carried that through and said that where there are offences created under the bill - and there are a limited number of offences, as you know, and those essentially relate to the automatic prohibitions - those offences should be accessible to the public. In the event that the public becomes aware of an incident where an endangered species is being killed or molested or its residence being destroyed, for example, it is clearly the obligation of the governments under this legislation to take corrective measures. In the event that they do not, this particular clause says an individual may bring forward that information and require the government to take action or to explain publicly why it is not.

That was done very much in terms of the general spirit of openness and transparency in the bill. It made sense where you saw it in the context of all the other open and transparent features in the legislation. The onus for the citizen's suit is to make sure the government does what the government is required to do.

I would answer in that way, Madame Guay.

.0920

Mr. Verkley: When you say ``when the government comes in''...and I think there is a role for society to say that someone needs to ultimately look after and make sure, if we've targeted a species as endangered, that we make some commitments. But strictly from a cost point of view, not even dealing with the effectiveness of what actually happens out there, it's probably an awful lot cheaper, and you'd get more value for the dollar, to say, okay, if a concern has been raised and the government needs to go in and do something, then possibly the first avenue of attack would be to work cooperatively and then throw some dollars into the habitat enhancement or whatever it's going to take that's reasonable. I think that can be very cost-effective.

Enforcement is by no means cheap. If you end up dealing with landowners who then become adversaries, you then spend an awful lot of time and effort on enforcement and a lot of ill will is built within the community.

If even a third of those dollars were thrown in the first day to say, look, we have a common interest here, you're the advantaged individual who now has what we in society feel is a very treasured resource, and then to ask what we would do to help out in the situation to make sure that everyone benefits, it would probably cover 90% of the instances wherever involvement would be necessary.

Again, it would be much more cost-effective and would build up that whole ethic of exactly what is it we as a society are trying to do with these endangered species.

Mr. Doris: I have a couple of comments. First of all, regarding the member's question about Ontario legislation and the effectiveness of it, there are two very good examples cited in our brief that highlight probably not what is wrong with the legislation, because I think in Canada the intent of the legislation is okay, but what is wrong with the process.

One deals with a bird called Henslow's sparrow. A farmer near Belleville, Ontario, was told that he could not cut his hay until about the middle of July, because it was the nesting ground of the provincially designated Henslow's sparrow. If he violated that order by cutting the hay prior to the middle of July he would face a fine of up to $50,000 and two years' imprisonment. That does not exactly set a good tone of cooperation in habitat protection.

I guess the silver lining in this story is that the local field ornithologist came in and basically offered to compensate the farmer for the value of the nutrition lost from leaving the hay stand for about another month.

The other example is a bird called the loggerhead shrike, which actually has a range somewhere around this area here. In this case a person was refused a permit to build a house because a loggerhead shrike was sighted on the property a couple of years previously.

I think it's safe to say the intent is right, but it's a case of making sure you get the process right - the process of consultation, the process of involvement. That is what's so critical, and is probably what will help the habitat more than any other single factor, even dollars. Ensuring that there's proper process and proper consultation with the landowners and affected individuals at the start I think can do a lot to alleviate problems down the line.

[Translation]

Ms Guay: I would like to make one last comment. The federal endangered species protection legislation has caused a lot of provinces to take action. Some have decided to draw up lists of endangered species, and I would agree that that is a good thing. That is the positive side of this legislation. Other provinces have decided to pass their own legislation on endangered species. That too is positive.

However, following the Charlottetown agreement signed last October, the Ministers of the Environment seem dissatisfied with the bill, because, in their view, it is not compatible with the agreement. The legislation goes even further than the Charlottetown agreement, and farmers are dissatisfied as well.

I think we will have an opportunity to study this during the clause-by-clause study next week. We will try to amend the bill at that time to make it compatible with existing legislation in other jurisdictions, rather than a source of legal difficulties.

.0925

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, please.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allusions have been made today to the agricultural producers, whether they be small farmers in Ontario...or more recently we have heard from cattle producers, stock growers, in the west. We've heard repeatedly about the fears of suffering a loss and also how these agricultural producers may resent the potential prescriptive control from outside. In view of this theme we've heard repeatedly, I wonder if you've addressed your mind to actually suggesting some wording in some specific clauses in the bill to focus on the agricultural community's fears.

It's my belief that if we can overcome some of the fears - and some of them may be overreaching - it would change the operation of the legislation and achieve wide support. Of course in an operational sense nothing is really going to happen productively with this bill unless those who are closest to the land see this bill as something desirable and something to be achieved, rather than as something to be subverted and manoeuvred around. I would like a number of commentators to address specifically clauses and wording in the bill that would overcome these fears.

Ms Forsyth: I didn't bring the National Agriculture Environment Committee brief with us or the brief Mr. Verkley has, which is a consortium brief from several industry groups, ourselves included, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. In the two briefs we have presented to you in the past...in the National Agriculture Environment Committee one we have made very specific suggestions for changes in clauses. Also, in the other brief, ``Fostering Stakeholder Cooperation'', which we have handed out to several of you personally as a small consortium of industry folks, we suggest some solutions for how partnerships and fostering cooperation would be done. I'll draw your attention to those, since we've provided them to you in the past.

The Chairman: Yes, Ms Forsyth, that brief was distributed in Vancouver. It is dated January 29, and as you said, it is entitled ``Fostering Stakeholder Cooperation''. We were given it in Vancouver.

Ms Forsyth: Previously the National Agriculture Environment Committee presented, along with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, I believe in December. I notice one of the members has a copy of our brief. It has some fairly specific comments or suggestions for changes. It may bear reviewing as you go over it next week.

Mr. Doris: One of the things we saw in Ontario with the whole issue of land use designations in the early 1990s was that what seemed to infuriate landowners the most was process - not being consulted and not being brought into the process early enough. My only suggestion to the committee in reviewing the clauses is to look at ways by which you can look at setting up a cooperative process first and bringing it to bear as the first line of defence. I think that is something that would be welcomed by the majority of landowners.

The Chairman: Why don't you complete your thought, since you leave it hanging half in the air, by suggesting what kind of process you have in mind?

Mr. Doris: I wasn't trying to leave you hanging in the air.

About completing the thought, right now it sets a process for listing species and going through the whole process for how they get on the list and things of that nature. To be honest with you, that really isn't terribly landowner friendly.

.0930

When a species is identified as being at risk, my suggestion is to look at talking with the affected landowners then, along with bringing in the appropriate people at the provincial and municipal levels and telling them that in their area there is a species whose future well-being you're concerned about. Then tell them you'd like to look at setting up a process with them to enhance its habitat. And do this before bringing the full weight of legislative process or regulatory process to bear.

Basically, that is my comment about process and how you can bring landowners, farmers and people in the community together. It brings them together in a common approach rather than in a divisive, shouting match type of meeting that you tend to get at town halls or such things.

The Chairman: So, Mr. Doris, in your vision of the ideal process you would have phase one, the scientific phase; phase two, the consultation with the interested parties at the property level -

Mr. Doris: That's right.

The Chairman: Phase three then -

Mr. Doris: Phase three would be an action implementation stage based on the discussions with the technical people and the community. Phase four would probably be an ongoing monitoring phase looking at the effects. And at that point, if it's the case that the recovery plan needs revisions, I think we should pursue that. If it is the case that we then need to look at other measures and whether they are regulatory, I think it would be appropriate at that point.

The Chairman: And the recovery plan would be launched between phase two and phase three.

Mr. Doris: The recovery plan would be developed in step with the consultations with the community. Yes, it would be in phase two.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: I'm finished.

The Chairman: Mr. Slater.

Mr. Slater: May I comment on that? The fundamental structure of Bill C-65 includes many of those features. First, it includes the listing process -

Mr. Doris: In terms of getting away from the issue of the scientific community and the wildlife biologists and those people who are really interested about the species act, who in the community in Huron County or in northern Alberta or on Vancouver Island sees that?

Mr. Slater: In accordance with the proposals that we have made, the process of defining the list is an independent, arm's length scientific process. A blue-ribbon panel of scientific experts would give us their best advice.

The detail of the procedure that is contained in the bill says that distinct from what currently happens, instead of that just being the best scientific advice, something is expected to happen as a consequence. The particular thing now, according to the proposed legislation, is that once something is formally enshrined on an authorized list, penalties can be levied for any individual or corporate undertaking that would damage or cause the death of or destroy the residences, etc., of that particular listed species. As you well know, the penalties for repeat offences can be as high as $1 million for an offence. That is clearly different from what is happening.

Because of the accountability of ministers in that regime, the proposal in Bill C-65 is that this list be published as an Order in Council in the federal Gazette. The process for publication in the Gazette is part I, where the list is published, and then part II, when it is, if you wish, ratified. There is a public disclosure period during that time, so I guess if you wanted to know what the standing was you would see it at that time.

.0935

I'd also mention that all of the recommendations coming out of the COSEWIC listing process, the scientific process, are publicly available as they are produced. They are on a public register that we will have to create again as part of this transparency and openness in the process.

Once it is peer-reviewed within the scientific community, which is the standard process of undertaking these sorts of things and is the current practice within COSEWIC and has been for the past 25 years, then it would become an Order in Council. It would have the standing of regulation, and pursuant to that standing there are these automatic prohibitions that would come into play.

That's clearly different from the current situation and provides an immediate level of protection, but that immediate level of protection is limited. It is restricted to the particular offences that are defined in the bill. It is not intended to provide all of the protection or all of the management regime the species requires. That step is to be done in the recovery plan, and that's when you engage all of the parties that need to be engaged in devising all of the measures the species requires in order to be protected. I know we have a preoccupation with habitat. This is understandable and frequently justified, but it is not - and I must emphasize it is not - all you have to do.

I bring to members' attention an issue we're currently engaged in. The Swainson's hawk is a species that is at risk in Canada, but its greatest risk within its life cycle is to be found in its wintering range in Argentina, where the use of pesticides last year caused over 20,000 deaths of that particular bird. Our best form of intervention to protect the Swainson's hawk was to send experts to Argentina to work with the Argentinians to find alternative pesticides that would be equally effective and would not affect the hawk in Argentina.

So there's an example of an intervention that is possible for us now. It's not enabled by the provisions of this act, which was crucial.

Another instance is the burrowing owl - I'm sure you've been informed of that case history - where part of the issue was habitat. The other part of the issue was a pesticide used for the control of grasshoppers, a food source for the burrowing owl, which was poisoning the owl.

The best form of intervention the federal government could make in that regard was to lead a process to examine and ultimately end up with a set of restrictions on the application of carbofuran, the particular pesticide that was causing the risk.

A large number of actions are potentially necessary in order to come forward with a recovery plan, and they frequently include but go beyond habitat.

In the bill there is a limit for developing recovery plans. After listing, there is a limit of 12 months for the species that is endangered, i.e. in a most critical state, and two years for a species that is threatened or extirpated. Again, that process is technically driven. It is driven by defining what the species needs to be recovered. Then there is a period of, I believe, 150 days within which the government then says what it is going to do to implement that recovery plan.

.0940

Again, all of the steps in this process are open and transparent. The public register will be as open and accessible as we can make it.

The Chairman: Mr. Doris.

Mr. Doris: I just have a couple of brief comments. I like the Canadian government's approach to dealing with Argentina, but I'm just not so sure about its approach to dealing with Canadians. When we found out there was a problem in Argentina we went down to help them, yet when I hear about what we're doing in Canada.... It's the case that it's a very scientific, technical thing, which is necessary, but the one thing that's missing from the puzzle is that you will need to make efforts on the ground to make it happen.

My approach, rather than this very scientifically driven process, would have the science as part of it but would be more of an integrated approach. There would be a response person who would say, ``We realize this species is at risk and there is a problem.'' This person could identify the issues surrounding it, such as where it was, who the affected stakeholders were, who was interested in it and who the landowners were. Then a local response team would be put together that would have technical work but would also hopefully garner the cooperation and support of the people and the activities in that area to make it happen.

The Chairman: That is very sensible, Mr. Doris. The question would be how much time it would take and whether you would run the risk of losing the species in the meantime.

Mr. Verkley.

Mr. Verkley: As a landowner and a farmer, my first inclination if an endangered species were spotted on my land would be to say there's obviously something on my land attracting this endangered species, and that's a very positive thing. Instead of the government responding by coming down and saying it now had the authority to protect this animal and coming in right away with the protection mode, it could respond in an enhancement mode by saying ``We've identified an endangered species, so this gives us the right to come in and give you a hand to help find out why this endangered species was attracted to your particular habitat. How can we generate more of that habitat in the neighbourhood and share that resource with others?'' It's a completely different approach.

You're going to be spending the money anyway. You say that in stage two or three you go in with the resources. I think that whole enabling act of listing species gives you the right to spend public dollars. Let's spend those first public dollars on a proactive mode when you step in. I think that will generate a better environmental ethic amongst the landowners and have a far higher success rate. The dollars are inevitably going to be spent, and if you make it tougher and find landowners have to be coerced, the expense will go up.

One example would be that the land in southern Ontario is now worth well over $3,000 per acre. If we have shelter belts that take up 5 or 10 acres of land, you already have landowners who are putting $30,000 or $40,000 of their resources into keeping that in a natural setting. From a business point of view that is not necessary. We wouldn't be breaking any laws by getting rid of a shelter belt. Woodlots are protected but these shelter belts in most cases are not. You don't hear the bulldozers running at night, blasting down fence rows. There are reasons for that, and one of the reasons is that a community ethic has been built up. So much of the wording, when you go in and look at these things, is perception. What message are you sending?

I know it's the old thing - we're here from the government and we're here to help. Through the best management practices of the Environmental Farm Plan, we have some farmers in Ontario who actually believe that when the government person drives up he or she is there to help out. It's taken a long time to foster that kind of trust. It's taken hard work by all the players. Now one player in that whole coalition is saying, yes, you weren't bad guys, but gosh, when it comes down to that endangered species we're going to have to bring the hammer out, because, darn it, somebody says we have to protect this bird.

.0945

The Chairman: It may be attraction, Mr. Verkley, as you say, or it may just be sheer naked survival of a species. We wouldn't be in this room to discuss this legislation if it weren't for the fact that we are at a very critical hour. If things had been done the way reasonable people such as you are suggesting it could be done, we wouldn't even be looking at this legislation. Keep that in mind. So it may not just be attraction.

Mr. Steckle, Mr. Adams and Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): To all the panel members, good morning. I rather enjoyed listening to Sheila this morning when she gave us her exposé or sermonette. We normally get that at the end of our meeting, and it usually comes from the chair. So we will forgo that part of our program this morning. We went through that. I much appreciated what you had to say.

I'm not sure whether Adam, in his naming of the species, named them in Hebrew or Latin, but we seem to be talking about the same birds and species as we go through this legislation. Sometimes we have different interpretations of what we're trying to say in the bill.

I think something that has come forward is this whole notion that there needs to be a view towards partnerships. That has come up many times. The interpretation of habitat and the expansion and the broad base of habitat, residency, what that really means - all of these things are concerns we have to deal with.

Huron was mentioned this morning. I can tell you that the people in Huron are very much interested in this piece of legislation. I feel privileged to be part of a committee that is looking at something as detailed and as complex as this. As the chairman has so ably mentioned, we wouldn't be here this morning if there weren't a need for legislation.

As we look at the area of compensation, if there was one thing the rural community of Canada and those people who own the land - that is, not federal land - where the greatest impact was likely to take place.... How do you see us dealing with this issue of compensation given the fiscal constraint in our budgets? How can we develop partnerships and compensation, since the preservation of the species is for the good of all, and we all share in the common good?

Clause 8 of our proposed legislation speaks to this notion of compensation. How do you see us dealing with that? I think we need to deal with it to give some comfort to those.... We haven't talked about it much this morning. I think Mr. Forseth alluded to it but it was skirted. How can we deal with that aspect of this legislation so that we can give comfort?

We want to have legislation that does all of the things we've come to the table to try to do without creating the reality that in some parts - and Paul, you mentioned this - it has the very negative impact we don't want. People have taken the view that if we dispose of this species, it isn't going to be a problem: if it devalues my property, if it inhibits my ability to be compensated properly to make a living, then I need to do something about it.

We know there's competition today to get birds to the bird feeder. That's the greatest-growing sport in North America. How can we compete for those species to come to our property rather than taking the other view so that we have a positive approach to this thing and we all work together?

Mr. Verkley: We haven't brought it up because we realize it is a very sensitive area. If I say as a landowner that shelter belts are there for the good of the environment and therefore the government should pay, and I'd like to see interest on $4,000 an acre in perpetuity, it would be very unrealistic. But in terms of responsibility of landowners, we also want to have a clear vision of what exactly is the responsibility of society in general. When we say we have these species at risk, we can sit down and argue, well, whose fault was it, or is it, or is it going to be?

.0950

If I look back over the last ten years, I see the kind of improvement within the Ontario agricultural sector in dealing with this whole environment...and natural areas, where we see actually an increase in natural areas, wasn't done because of a large amount of government dollars. I think we have developed a team approach. As much as Ontario stands up and we brag about about our Environmental Farm Plan, in reality the thing that kick-started that was that society said well, we have some Green Plan funding and we're willing to toss it over and see what we can work with here; what can you guys do with this? Certainly Ontario was very proactive. I think you'll find if the approach is ``here is the challenge, here is the problem'', and it seems we're all going to be part of the solution, we're willing to kick in so many dollars.

But it's not only a question of our being willing. The other side of the line for one of the farm leaders or lobbyists is that there is a cost. If you guys are going to pick up the responsibility of protecting these endangered species, how are you going to get that job done? Enforcement is not a cheap avenue. It's also not a successful avenue.

My challenge would be that we feel...a very cooperative approach in fish and wildlife habitat management. This takes a long time for operators to develop. When you're rehabilitating a stream, this isn't done by going out and finding a couple of trees. You build on it, and you build on it with partnerships.

So yes, I want to see a commitment that says if there's an endangered species, that opens up a treasury door somewhere for some dollars for funding, in a positive fashion, and to be funnelled to a very local level with partners. So maybe the wording needs to be that the levels...especially with Ontario, where we have the Minister of Natural Resources looking after the waterways, and the federal legislation.... If you want to get a farmer paranoid, start reading the federal Fisheries Act. Thank goodness it hasn't been enforced to the letter, because there are an awful lot of problem areas in that one.

Mr. Doris: On the issue of compensation - and I realize it's a challenge - this is the front page of the Ontario Field Ornithologists' newsletter in October. That was one of the anecdotes I referred to earlier. They provided the farmer with $300. I couldn't remember what it was, but digging in the file I found it. It was $300.

What I see as the issue of compensation...and maybe you don't even want to call it compensation, because I realize there are some legal issues, but maybe some sort of cooperative program or something a little more friendly on it. I don't think it's big dollars. Probably what I'm looking at is when you have the species that are on your endangered and threatened lists, species that are targeted, and when you look at where we are trying to target our activities, you can say, okay, who are the affected individuals and who can make the most benefit in making a meaningful difference in improving habitat and put some dollars there. Probably if you put aside even a small amount of money for the species listed on these two bands across this page here you would be amazed at what even $200,000 or $300,000 would do. It's a fair degree of money to a landowner. It would probably go a long way, at $200 or $300 here or $500 there, in helping the fate of the species you're interested in. If you had that to be delivered as part of the carrot approach with these recovery plans, I think it would go a long way.

Mr. Slater: A couple of issues related to this issue. One is this period wherein the automatic prohibitions would be the operative piece of legislation. As I indicated, the intention is for that to be only for a limited period and to be overtaken, if you wish, by the development of the recovery plans. Everything that has been said by my friends here about recovery plans is exactly the way you would want recovery plans to be developed. It is the ultimate form of partnership amongst all of the parties that have an opportunity to make their contribution for a recovery plan.

.0955

If a recovery plan is going to be sustained beyond the short term when everyone is enthusiastic on day one - it's year five or year ten that is going to be the real test of some of those recovery plans - then they have to be self-sustaining and meet all of the needs of all of the participants around the table.

We have shied away and continue to shy away from the use of the word ``compensation'' because it sounds to us like cash on the table before you move. The point was made here that perhaps it's more a stewardship, a land or habitat stewardship initiative, that would allow a whole load of players to come to the table.

I know, from reports at least, that the committee has asked people who have been witnesses before this committee whether they would be prepared to contribute to a fund that would ultimately give help to people who were taking stewardship initiatives. It may be cash in a way to delay harvesting a crop of hay until July, or August, whatever it might be, or it might be actually purchasing a piece of property, or it may be simply providing the education, the knowledge, that would tell somebody that if you manage your property in that fashion, then here is a beneficial consequence.

You'd want all of those sorts of things to be available, whether it's for the private landowner, the farmer, or for the corporation, which is generally a much larger landowner.

I'd mention that we're not without experience in this country in doing those sorts of things. We do have some existing recovery plans that have functioned exactly in this way. We do have the North American waterfowl management plan, which is a wonderful example of cooperation and collaboration between all of these parties you describe and which has produced...and I regret I can't get the number on the end of my tongue; I'll give you the precise number. Well over a million acres of wetlands have been restored or upgraded in the last few years through this partnership program and the North American waterfowl management plan. So there's lots of history and experience that we can draw on, which would be very beneficial when we come to the step of producing the recovery plans.

Mr. Steckle: I think a good example of the proactive approach taken would be the one taken by Ducks Unlimited - very proactive. But they haven't dealt with extirpated species; they've dealt with species that have been perhaps limited in their numbers in recent years and they've been able to get them brought back.

There's been tremendous cooperation by the rural people, the communities in which these wildlife areas have been developed, in doing that. I would hope that as my rural friends go back into the rural parts of Ontario and into other parts of Canada - because we've talked to other parts of Canada as well - they find some comfort in what we're attempting to do.

We're not attempting here to put in a piece of legislation that is in some way going to have a negative impact, because we know ultimately you are the caretakers of that habitat we're trying to preserve and will need to for the good of all.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for the presentations.

Paul, we've had a variety of presentations from farm groups all across the country, and we have had hearings in various provinces. The impact of this is different in different provinces because obviously the geography is different and, I think, the jurisdiction, the framework.

Here in Ontario, from your point of view, what do you think the main changes are from the existing regime, given the environmental bill of rights and the endangered species legislation that exists in Ontario and has existed for some time? What are the big changes that you would see in this federal legislation?

.1000

Mr. Verkley: I keep coming back to this whole deal of perception. We've been able to identify two cases where the endangered species legislation has had a negative impact on farmers. Those two cases have just literally put a very negative tone right across the whole industry. Those are the kind of perceptual concepts of: are you coming in as a government to control ultimately us, as managers, or can you somehow send the message that we're going to be partners in trying to enhance some of these species?

Mr. Adams: But if this legislation didn't pass and there was a third species, wouldn't whatever happened with those two just happen again?

Mr. Doris: Can I take a crack at that? There is a potential that a third episode will occur, and there are more than just two; there are other cases out there. As I say, it's a question of process, and that's what we're basically trying to provide you with some feedback on, to make sure you get the process right.

In terms of jurisdiction and how it could affect Ontario, it's probably important to take a look at who the players are in the scene. In addition to the landowners and the various other groups that are interested in it, on the ground probably farmers in Ontario will deal most usually with the field office of Agriculture as the first line of defence. That's common, I would say, from one end of Canada to the other. In southern Ontario we have conservation authorities who probably could be very active on these types of things.

The question I guess in crafting federal legislation then becomes how you manage to craft it so that it will work into the various subtleties of Ontario versus Alberta or British Columbia or Quebec or whatever, keeping in mind that what works in one province may not work in another. I have seen that farmers do not like it when there are competing bureaucrats, when they get conflicting messages. It sends clearly the wrong message and it causes no end of grief. It's something that farmers will continue to refer to as the problems with government - that they're not responsive, that they're tripping over each other, and things like that. That is the type of thing we want to make sure we avoid with this or any type of legislation.

Mr. Adams: I've listened very carefully to what you had to say, by the way, and with great sympathy. That last point about bureaucrats tripping over each other I certainly agree with, as well as this business of process.

This question of perception you're talking about - I understand it, and that's what I'm trying to get at, but if I could cut at it again.... If we could pass legislation that only applied to certain provinces, I would be glad to exempt Ontario from this legislation, because I don't think it changes things very much. Here this sort of legislation exists, and we're all gradually coming to terms with it. That was really the point of my question.

Mr. Chair, I don't particularly want to push it to you, but I would suggest to you that there are provinces that (a) don't have endangered species legislation, and (b) have a record that is quite different from the one we work under here. That's my only point. It's not that I'm not listening to your point about perception, but I suspect personally that it makes very little difference in this province. Now, it may be that we don't like the current regime in this province and so on, but that's not what we're influencing here.

I think this legislation is more designed for the six provinces and the two territories that don't have legislation of this type than it is for the four that do, and in particular Ontario, where it happens to be strong provincial legislation.

Mr. Doris: I would agree with you that it probably will not affect Ontario as much as the provinces that do not have legislation. However, where it will get into problems is if something is listed on a provincial list and not on a federal list, or vice versa. That is potentially a red flag I would raise for consideration - how you're going to deal with those issues. Those are things that can get a little dicey. For example, something may be endangered in Ontario but not endangered nationally, or vice versa, just by the way the habitats and the range of the species are.

.1005

Those are just kind of the realities I guess I'd ask you to consider.

Mr. Adams: We will.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit, followed by Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone.

This legislation has become an issue in my part of the country pretty much just over the last couple of weeks, as some farm groups have started talking about it. It has been talked about now on radio talk shows and written up in newspapers fairly extensively, and I'm finding that I'm getting more and more reaction to concerns people have with this legislation.

The concerns that people bring up are pretty much the same as you gentlemen have brought up today, namely the issue of taking a cooperative approach rather than a prescriptive approach. Ducks Unlimited is a real model of how the cooperative approach can work extremely well. Whether you could find a group of people that would be willing to put the same kind of effort into protecting other species is questionable, certainly.

The other issue is that of compensation, if there is a loss of land value or a loss of use of property, or a cost to protecting a habitat of an endangered species by fencing and that type of thing. Those are the concerns the people have brought to me. I think this issue is going to be talked about an awful lot more over the months to come as we get into this, and I think it's important that people's concerns are answered.

I'd like to start by asking you, Mr. Slater, a few questions. You brought up the issue of the burrowing owl and how pesticides used on grasshoppers were killing off the burrowing owl. I have a couple of questions on that. You said what happened is that the particular pesticide involved was restricted. Was there an alternate pesticide readily available in that case?

Mr. Slater: I'm not aware of that. I would presume so, but perhaps my -

Mr. Benoit: My second question was going to be what is the cost relative to the one that was banned? You can see a concern, if the cost of the pesticide that.... I'm sure there was another one available; there are several pesticides that can be used on grasshoppers.

Mr. Slater: Yes.

Mr. Benoit: But if the least expensive pesticide is restricted.... You can see how this is one example of how the landowners could be a little bit concerned about legislation that would allow that to happen, where they bear the full cost of using the alternate pesticide. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but I think that just points out the type of problems that can come up.

Mr. Verkley: In dealing with the Furadan issue, in that case I think the greatest degree of problem was in the granular form of that pesticide as it was being applied. I think we have perceptions as farmers - and I think government had perceptions as well - that aren't always founded in the workable truth. I would hazard a guess that on average the farmers are willing to make some sacrifice. If it's pointed out that the granular form of Furadan was killing these burrowing owls, farmers are very much willing to kick in their share, if government says they're willing to kick in their share, and some other natural groups come in. Then I think we have a workable solution.

I think right from day one if it's a shared potential resource, a shared problem or challenge, then we're going to go in and everybody will throw in what it's going to take. I think if you ask farmers, they'll say, yes, we're buying it; we don't want to see the extinction of any of these species. And they will very much put that as one of the higher goals of our stay with the industry.

.1010

Mr. Benoit: You've probably expressed the view that most farmers and ranchers would take on an issue like that.

Mr. Slater, following up on an earlier question from Madame Guay on the idea of citizens suing, I would like to get an idea.... You mentioned a process. You mentioned that information would be demanded, and I would just like to get an idea from you...could you just go step by step through what this process might be? In particular, I would like you to refer to the amount of time and possible cost to the individual who has to supply this information and be involved in this process and how adequate the compensation might be. That will come in the regulation that goes along with this legislation, but it's critical if that is considered and talked about ahead of time.

Mr. Slater: As I understand it, it's directed more at making sure government does its job than at an individual landowner, for example.

Mr. Benoit: Yes, but it can be directed at an individual landowner, as I understand it.

Mr. Slater: The primary intention of these provisions is that, for example, an individual could conclude - and it could start at COSEWIC - that they have evidence establishing that a species should be looked at to see whether it's endangered. So there's an opportunity for citizen action at that point.

But the primary purpose of this is that if there is a set of automatic prohibitions - i.e., it's limited to the offences under the bill - and the prohibitions say, as you know, you should not kill, harm, molest, destroy, etc., if a citizen has what they believe is information or evidence that suggests the government is not pursuing that course with due deliberation, then the citizen can demand that action be taken by government in that fashion. They can only demand it of the federal government, because the authorities here are restricted to those available to the federal government. Then a due process is undertaken that allows for a series of backwards and forwards between the government and the claimant.

It seems to me it doesn't necessarily engage the citizen unless the citizen or the landowner is someone who is actually in violation of those automatic prohibitions under the proposed act. That isn't an extra cost associated with those provisions, it's a cost associated with the offences created under the proposed act.

Mr. Benoit: If an individual is found to have violated in some way, then what could the consequences be? I guess I'm looking again for the time, effort, and expense that could be brought on this individual to defend themselves.

Mr. Slater: I couldn't speculate on the cost of the court proceedings. What the bill does in creating the offence is to say that if an individual knowingly.... Let's just take a for instance. If a whooping crane landed on that individual's property and the individual, knowing it was a whooping crane, shot it, then that would be an offence under this bill. Who knows what a judge would determine, but that individual would be liable for a fine of $250,000 on a first offence, which is doubled on repeat offences. For corporations it is up to $500,000 on a first offence and $1 million on a repeat offence.

.1015

Mr. Benoit: I don't think the problem occurs when it's a blatant violation like that. A violation is more difficult to determine when an accused person could reasonably find it difficult to know he was committing an offence. And I know you say the law will cover that. The example you used is a pretty obvious case, but there are cases where it would be less obvious.

Mr. Slater: I was trying to deal with the obvious one. It's difficult to speculate on how such a set of provisions will be interpreted by judges and courts. Officials and civil servants have a fair amount of experience in interpreting offences created by acts that are not always terribly clear. For example, the federal Fisheries Act says it is prohibited to deposit any substance deleterious to fish in a water frequented by fish. That is such a blanket prohibition that it requires significant discretion in terms of its application.

The intention here was to produce - as precisely as we could word them - a set of automatic offences that would be admittedly limited but would be as clear as we are capable of making them in order to eliminate that. If the committee is able to make them clearer, less ambiguous and more precise, I think that would be a good service to all.

Mr. Benoit: Mr. Slater, I think you've just pointed out with your answer that landowners should be concerned about the way this legislation is written, because you've indicated that it very difficult to anticipate how the courts will deal with this. That's exactly the concern of people who could be affected or who are most likely to be affected by this legislation.

Mr. Slater: Mr. Forseth mentioned a concern in that regard in that it is quite possible to take a particular sanction and then overinterpret and overextend its significance and application by isolating it as opposed to looking at the whole package of the legislation and the context within which that legislation is to be implemented.

I think it would be most unfortunate if the legislation were to be prejudicial to the partnerships that have been established in this field over the past 25 years or so. This legislation has to function within the context of partnership. The assistance of the committee in trying to wrestle with that, which is clearly a key concern of the committee, which we share...there's no corner on how to do that most effectively.

Mr. Benoit: I have a closing comment. Unless the people who are most likely to be affected by this are very confident that this legislation is amended to deal with those two issues of the cooperative approach rather than the prescriptive and the whole compensation issue - or if you don't want to call it compensation maybe you could call it a cooperative funding approach rather than the more confrontational approach - I think there's going to be a awful lot of backlash with this legislation. It hasn't started yet. It's just building. That's what I feel back at home. I certainly hope this committee and this government will make the amendments that are necessary to give people that confidence.

.1020

Mr. Verkley: As a point of interest, has the committee actually identified species that, if this bill were not put in place, you feel would be in jeopardy? What's the motivating factor here? Are things going horribly wrong for some species in Canada at this point?

The Chairman: The submissions made by COSEWIC are to the effect that there are species that need to be given national protection and species that also require protection because of our international commitments. COSEWIC, as you know, is a scientific body. They made their presentations to us on two occasions.

Mr. Slater, would you like to comment?

Mr. Slater: Yes. You've made reference, Mr. Chair, to COSEWIC, as have I. The work of COSEWIC has been done following a federal-provincial agreement, but I think the participants and the observers of COSEWIC have concluded that it would benefit substantially from having its role enshrined in legislation.

The other thing I'd mention is that the recovery planning process, pursuant to COSEWIC identification of species at risk at the present time, is a ``best efforts'' approach to recovery planning. I'm not trying to denigrate it. I think RENEW, the recovery of nationally endangered wildlife program, which has been in place for almost a decade now, has made substantial progress. But the fact of the matter is that the number of species that get listed continues to expand far faster than the species for which we're actually developing recovery plans. The backlog is growing. So the performance on the ground in terms of successful recovery planning is slipping.

This legislation would, by creating all the prescriptions about how rapidly and with what precision you have to produce the recovery plan and the obligation to respond to suggestions on a recovery plan, would over time eliminate the backlog and then maintain a steady pace in recovery planning with designation of species.

The final point I'd make is that the expectations for this country clearly speak to ever-expanding economic activity, expanding population and expanding urbanization. It's this process of development that would integrate protection of endangered species in its core that would prevent us having to deal with a backlog situation in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Curtis, do you want to say something?

Mr. Steven Curtis (Director, Wildlife Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment): I would add a few comments, Mr. Chairman.

It's clear that both levels of government, federal and provincial, are going to have to work closely and in partnership with landowners, particularly with the agricultural sector. I think in our wildlife programs, as Dr. Slater has said, we've been trying to do that over the years through such things as the North American waterfowl management plan. We have to focus on programs outside the specific sphere of this bill to deal with prevention, and also probably under the types of incentives Sheila Forsyth talked about. We need to address those.

It's not as clear that every provision of those programs needs to be specified within the body of this bill. It needs to be understood that the bill is only part of the approach; there's a broader program that addresses the full range of what needs to be done if endangered species conservation objectives are to be achieved.

The key tool we have in this bill for working with landowners is in fact the recovery planning process that's been alluded to for some time. It's also why we have very carefully avoided including specific habitat protection measures into the automatic prohibitions, because we know what the consequences of that would be, and we know equally well that the best way to resolve this problem is through the recovery planning process.

.1025

The other point I would make is that I know there seems to be a growing anxiety within the agricultural community about the potential impact of this legislation, but there isn't all that much -

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Benoit, I think Mr. Curtis is addressing some of the points you raised a moment ago.

Please proceed.

Mr. Curtis: In my view, there aren't that many additional protective measures that are layered on as a consequence of this bill. The bill applies to federal species wherever they occur in Canada, and it applies to species that occur on federal lands. So it applies to migratory birds.

There are already, under the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, prohibitions on killing or harming a migratory bird on your property. So what has this bill added in terms of an additional penalty? Perhaps there will be more focus on it, and perhaps some of the penalty structure may be a bit different, if you use this act rather than the MBCA for enforcement purposes, but what constitutes an illegal act is not really very much different.

The other area, then, is clause 33, which potentially adds additional species to the list, but if and only if provinces haven't been able to demonstrate or provide through their legislation equivalent protective provisions. The expectation is that clause 33 will not be used very often, because the expectation is that the provinces will be doing that. So my comment would be that I don't see that this bill creates a huge additional prescriptive burden on landowners - not in and of itself.

The Chairman: Mr. Doris.

Mr. Doris: If your intent is for federal species on federal lands and migratory birds and the international convention, and if it's the case where you only want to make regulations if a province has not acted properly, then state it in the bill, because right now it doesn't state it. If that is truly the intent, I'm sure wording can be drafted to reflect that intention in the legislation.

Mr. Slater: Mr. Chairman, it's federal species, species managed by the federal government everywhere, not just on federal land, but it's all species on federal lands, which is 60% of the territory of Canada.

The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr. Doris?

Mr. Doris: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, followed by the chair.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I would ask the question a little bit more directly. First of all, let me preface my comments by saying that I absolutely agree that the cooperative process is the best way. Also, after studying the bill for an extended period of time and listening to various witnesses from all sorts of different points of view, I'm convinced that it's in the bill and I think we'd appreciate the help of the various farm groups in the country to help us get that message out.

If you're not convinced that it's in the bill, then maybe we can talk about it. But on the first point you raised, right now farmers in Ontario are covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. So if you have a migratory bird, whether it's endangered or not, nesting on your property, you can't go and knowingly or willingly wreck its nest.

From the two examples you bring, I'm asking, do you know if the Migratory Birds Convention Act provides a significant problem for farmers in Ontario? I represent a rural riding and I haven't had one complaint.

.1030

Mr. Doris: My only comment would be that I don't see the Migratory Birds Convention Act as a problem in the farm community. We recognize that it is a well-balanced, well-administered piece of legislation regulation.

Mr. Knutson: I'd suggest to you, then, that this bill won't make any difference.

If I can just follow on that point, the two examples - -

Mr. Doris: Sorry. I would disagree with you in the sense that I don't think the Migratory Birds Convention Act has provisions for private individuals to launch legal challenges against other individuals.

Mr. Knutson: I'll come back to clause 60 in a second because I think it's an interesting point.

Let me also deal with the two examples you raised. You made the point earlier that there are two examples where the Ontario legislation had negative consequences on the private landowner. One of those examples, the $300 compensation to the hay grower, is clearly where the system worked. Why do we raise the red flag as an example of where the heavy hand of government is going to come down and hammer these people, when the government agency did its job properly?

Mr. Verkley: I can address that. Obviously it was not the government that came in and fixed it. It was the heavy hand of legislation that said you can't cut that hay. It was another organization that came in and said we feel you're being badly done by and we realize we have an obligation to help you out. I think that's where the problem ultimately is. If you're seen as the bad guy and therefore lose the cooperation and respect of the landowner and we have to fall back and find other partners, the whole drive to find new partners will be to find someone we can line up against the heavy hand of government. I think it is really counter-productive if we get into that mode.

Mr. Knutson: I guess I'd have to check out the facts.

Let me talk about the second example you raised. The woman whose property was affected came to see me, and she was brought forward as an example of where the Ontario legislation didn't work. But in your presentation you left out some salient details. She bought the property for $80,000. It was a vendor take-back mortgage for $50,000, and when it came up to its renewal date the mortgage holder wanted its $50,000 back. The woman went to the bank to have the property appraised, and it appraised the property without any knowledge of the loggerhead shrike, without any environmental implication at all. The bank appraised the property at $30,000. So even without the poor loggerhead shrike being brought into it, a problem was developing. The property owner tried to get the land severed and the severancing authority refused. When you own rural land in Ontario you know that severances can be a real problem for many reasons.

Because of the difference between the appraised value of the land without the environmental consideration and the mortgage that was on it, it's not a really clean example. We don't know whether her problems arose from the loggerhead shrike or from buying land with the expectation that she was going to be able to sever it. At the end of it I wasn't sure who was at fault.

I think all of us would agree we need a fairly heavy penalty clause in the bill to deal with the occasional person or corporation that deliberately breaks the law. That doesn't happen very often, thank goodness. It doesn't happen very often in society generally, but we still need a heavy penalty clause that won't be used very often.

Mr. Verkley: I think that is exactly the kind of thing we're after. I'd be the first to agree that without a heavy penalty clause, if this is ultimately not enforceable and we rely entirely on a voluntary effort, then those individuals who see abuses within the system will question their involvement in the process. Therefore, we need some justification and ultimately a heavy hand. But at the same time we have to be bought into a very open and understandable process that one goes through before the heavy hand comes down.

.1035

I'll refer back to the fact that it seems on day one the heavy hand comes in, and on day two you come in to see what you can do to help. That's completely the reverse of what a workable solution would be. On day one you should be coming in asking what you can do to help out. Ultimately, if we can't come to a consensus and we can't help this situation, then the heavy hand will come down.

Mr. Knutson: I agree with the thrust of your point entirely. Where we disagree is that it's in the wording of the bill, and having spent the last three months studying it I'm convinced of that.

The other point you make is in reference to the American examples. The General Accounting Office in the United States, which is similar to the Auditor General, has provided us with data that 99% of cases in the U.S.A. are worked out cooperatively.

There are some large examples, with the spotted owl being the main one. People say this act is identical to that of the U.S.A., and look what happened with the spotted owl. They don't point out that the process in the U.S. in terms of the citizen's suit is much different from that in Canada. You have far easier access to the court in the U.S.

In clause 60, the whole test of going to the minister asking for an investigation, giving him or her time to do the investigation, and then having to go to court to prove that the minister has acted unreasonably is a significant threshold that has to be crossed before a citizen can start bothering a private landowner. It's a very important test that has to be satisfied, and the U.S. doesn't have that. The only test it has is that if the Attorney General has already launched an action you can't duplicate it.

Mr. Verkley: Ultimately, the threshold we are all concerned with is at what point the landowner gives up on the positive aspects of protecting the environment and enhancing a habitat. When is the decision made that I no longer feel comfortable with the system and I no longer buy that this is what I'm going to do? It doesn't necessarily make that person a lawbreaker, but you lose the support.

We have found through our involvement in environmental issues that so many times it is exactly that perception. Facts don't mean a thing. When the coffee shop says, gosh, boys, I think if you put that down on paper, sooner or later the government is going to come in and look through that and you're going to write your own death ticket; it's going to fine you for what you wrote down.... You can say no, the facts do not back it up. It's perception; it is that threshold of commitment, and we need to do more.

I think as farm groups we need to do more and as partners in society we all need to do more. But certainly as people writing legislation, you're probably the first ones to have the opportunity to clearly define in very black and white terms where we all know there is going to be some question, and to clarify it as much as possible.

Mr. Doris: On the issue of the loggerhead shrike and the fluctuation in property values regardless of the designation, property values do fluctuate and we realize that is due to many different reasons. But you commented about severances, and they can be nasty things. That's an issue that can be hotly debated on both sides. I guess it's not the domain of this committee, it's the domain of the province in concert with the municipalities, so I would caution you about passing judgment.

Mr. Knutson: It's not a clean example.

Mr. Doris: It's not a clean example, except the fact of the matter is that a severance could not be granted. My question is whether that's a very top-down, bureaucratic, heavy-handed approach, and the answer is yes. Basically, that person went for a severance and by all other accounts would have been able to get it, regardless of what happened to property values, assuming it's within the approved zoning for that area.

On the the issue of the U.S. and legal action, the U.S. has a different system of justice than we do in Canada, and I recognize that. It's worded differently from this bill. But the fact remains that you said something about the threshold that has to be crossed before one citizen can bring an action against another one. Who is paying for me as a landowner if for some reason that citizen is going to bring an action against me? Who is going to protect my interests as a farmer in making sure I'm not fighting in court?

.1040

We've seen what landfill sites can do in a rural community and the sort of acrimony it can have, the draining experience it can be for farm families. I see this as very much a similar process, and I would say if you're going down that road, think twice.

Mr. Knutson: I have thought twice. I've thought more than twice. I've thought numerous times on this.

I'm just going to make a closing comment, since I come from a rural riding in Ontario.

Clause 60 is designed, and the whole matter of citizen suits...we can debate whether the threshold is high enough, and at the end of the day reasonable people might have legitimate differences, but I think it's a reasonably worded clause and people in Elgin County aren't even going to notice it. You can shake your head back and forth, but I think they are far more likely to notice an environmental department, such as we have in Queen's Park these days, which doesn't do its job. If you go through the American experience and you find out when citizens' suits start to arise, when we get actions in courts, it's when governments such as the Reagan administration stop enforcing the law. And that is an extremely undemocratic way to change laws.

We have laws on the books in Toronto right now and they were put there democratically, through the democratic process. The government is deciding not to enforce those laws. It doesn't go to Parliament. It doesn't go to the legislature. Yet it's the position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that we should delegate everything in environmental considerations to the provinces. I don't know if that represents at least the constituents in Elgin, that they're really comfortable with the environmental record of Mike Harris right now. My point is that when we look at citizens' actions, they arise when governments don't do their job.

So we can look at the micro-issue of who is going to pay the cost when, first of all, a complainant, an environmental group or whatever - just your neighbour, perhaps - goes to the government and asks who is going to do an investigation. The government is going to incur that cost. Then they have to prove the government acted unreasonably before they get to you. But the government is going to defend itself to show it acted reasonably. It's not up to you to defend the government and show it acted reasonably. So you're not in the process yet, not until somebody finds the government didn't act reasonably.

I can use the American example, with the Reagan administration. I can use Mike Harris. Those are two examples.

And you may want to use these. Maybe the farm groups in Ontario want to use these to prevent some industry from coming in and saying, look, the government is not doing its job in protecting our rights here. I wouldn't assume automatically you're always going to be on the defensive end of this. You may want to use the law to your own advantage, just as farmers, at least in Elgin County, tell me about the laws around planning to prevent urbanization of their farm land, because the last thing they want is a bunch of houses going up and then people complaining about the smell of their hog barns or whatever and creating misery for them. So they use the regulations to protect their livelihood. You may use the regulations and the prohibitions in the proposed act to protect your livelihood. But I'm not sure that perspective....

I apologize for going on too long. They have been three long months.

I just ask you to think about that. My main point is I don't think you're going to be negatively affected by this, any more than you are by the Migratory Birds Convention Act right now. There is a cooperative process in the bill and there are advantages to you in this bill.

Mr. Doris: You have done a lot of finger pointing against the Reagan government and the Harris government. We can debate that, but I don't think it's our place. You have a responsibility to focus your activities here.

I don't have a problem with legislation, and I don't have a problem with legislation in this area, but if the objective is to protect species at risk in Canada, if that is the ultimate attempt at this legislation, when you sit down to review this on a clause-by-clause basis, ask yourself the question, what is it going to take to protect and enhance their habitat and their homes? What sort of things is that going to take? It's probably going to take a variety of measures, some of them legislative, but the cooperative ones in this piece of legislation are not readily transparent to me.

.1045

The other thing is that whole issue of legal actions. You can talk about thresholds and things that have to be passed, but that still leaves the people on the back roads of Ontario with a very queasy or uneasy feeling.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Knutson: I think we can go back and forth about the feelings of people on the back roads of Ontario, but they may want to use the law some day to protect their way of life and they may be extremely happy that it was put in place.

The Chairman: This has been a very comprehensive discussion. There are a couple of areas I would like to touch upon briefly. One has to do with the main thrust of your brief. You in particular, Mr. Doris, have certainly focused on the question of process and its importance.

It is clear that the process needs to be better understood...and by all concerned, of course. Dr. Slater has already made a substantial contribution to the better understanding of it.

I hope it was helpful to you, and I hope there will be opportunities to elaborate, to communicate to the public how the process will work, because it will dispel a number of fears. I hope you agree with that observation. If not, we'll be glad to hear your comments.

There is a point, and Mr. Verkley mentioned it minutes ago, when there has to be some kind of intervention that protects those who are in the partnership from those who are reluctant to enter into the partnership.

It is a very important point and we all share that view. It has to be done. It may be a nuisance and we would rather not legislate with that in mind, but we have to, perhaps in the same manner that we legislate traffic lights. Suddenly the light turns red and traffic comes to a halt. People have to waste their time waiting. People are using gasoline and polluting the air on top of it, but if we didn't have the traffic light we could have blood all over the place, so we accept the traffic light as a nuisance. And if you don't respect the traffic light we have penalties attached.

There is that kind of step-by-step procedure in almost every piece of legislation, but I certainly think everybody in this room agrees that the emphasis is to be on the process, on making it acceptable through education and information and ensuring that the largest number of people come on board. As I said earlier, we wouldn't be at this stage if it were not for the fact that the way we have done things until now has not been sufficiently effective in protecting all the species.

We are being asked by organizations to do something about it, and some of you have also done so. These are perhaps at times the same organizations that may be able to provide some of the compensation, the kind of dollars that Mr. Verkley referred to. These organizations already exist and may, then, perhaps become engaged in this exercise of providing help to the farmer when he is being asked not to harvest at a certain point in time and so on.

These are very reasonable examples that you've given us. They also help us to understand the practical application of the legislation and how it should be applied in order to generate the highest possible level of cooperation.

But we have to err on the side of caution. This is what this legislation tends to do. And it may be that because we err on the side of caution it creates this impression of a punitive approach. That is definitely not the intent of the legislation.

.1050

As I said, I hope there will be opportunities, once the legislation is proclaimed, to elaborate on and explain at length how the process will work out so that the people not in this room will have the benefit of that knowledge.

I would welcome your comments, Mr. Curtis, but let me touch briefly on the second area and ask a question of Dr. Slater.

When we were in Vancouver and Edmonton, the representatives from the Yukon were a bit upset about the northern derogation clause, clause 2. They felt it was not adequate, not extensive enough and so on. We were told exactly the opposite by some other witnesses.

Is there a way of rewording clause 2 so as to give various interested parties in the north the kind of assurance they are seeking?

Mr. Slater: I would be very hesitant to offer an opinion on clause 2. This particular clause was one we took advice on after a great deal of discussion amongst our colleagues in the departments of justice and Indian affairs and northern development.

According to them, it represented the fine balance that was appropriate for this legislation. It is an area of expertise and experience that we willingly defer to those two agencies. So if they were changed there....

I guess what I'm trying to say in a long-winded fashion is that I'm not the right person to offer advice on that.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Curtis, to you the last word. Mr. Verkley, then.

Mr. Verkley: Of all the things that have been said, I think it's very important to note that we're very supportive of keeping an endangered species act that has the support of the general public and the support of landowners. In a holistic fashion it makes everyone feel a whole lot better...and you do have that buy-in. Ultimately, the carrot and stick approach is one that can be pursued, but it should be pursued in a fashion that is clearly supported and understood.

The Chairman: Fine.

This brings our sitting to a close. I would like to thank you all for the session this morning, particularly for bringing your views on the process. This has been very helpful, and we thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page