EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 4, 1997

.1539

[Translation]

The Chairman: The meeting is called to order. Today's witness is Mr. Sergio Marchi, Minister of the Environment. Mr. Minister, welcome to this committee. Would you care to begin?

The Honourable Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members.

[English]

I'm very pleased to be with you this afternoon to discuss the endangered species protection legislation. I believe the bill before us is historic. It's a first. It's tough, it's fair, and above all I think it's going to work.

.1540

There are no strong-arm tactics attached to this legislation, but it comes down with the full might of Canadian law on those who would hurt, capture, or destroy our endangered species.

The strength of this legislation is cooperation and partnerships.

[Translation]

The hard lessons of the past have taught us that Canada is at its best when all the parties that make it up work together. And when we do work together, as on this bill, we protect the creatures and wildlife so highly valued by all Canadians.

[English]

When I talk about working to protect endangered species, I believe full credit and thanks are due to members of this committee for all of your hard work and, more importantly, your commitment to this specific dossier.

As you know, and as you have heard, the endangered species problem is real in Canada. Canada's list of species at risk currently stands at 276, at least 10 of which are gone - which means gone forever. The witnesses you have heard on this issue are unanimous in their desire to protect species in peril. How we go about it seems to be the cause of debate.

This committee has already heard from some individuals who have suggested this legislation doesn't go far enough. You've also heard from individuals who've suggested this has gone way too far and has overstepped certain boundaries.

I believe we have gone a long way toward getting the job done, and I'm still prepared, within the context and scope of this bill, to consider any appropriate adjustments you may wish to propose in the days to follow.

The legislation is built on the understanding, as I mentioned before in terms of cooperation and partnership, that species protection is a shared jurisdiction. It is not exclusive to any level of government. We can debate the rights or wrongs of that for the next several decades, but that isn't going to do anything to protect threatened or endangered species. It is a fact that is clearly in front of us and one that we must work with as best we can at all levels of government.

The bill thus far provides for the federal government to act for federal species, species on federal lands, and international cross-border species. It provides provisions to give protection for species at risk that fall under international agreements.

[Translation]

As you know, we have, together with the provincial governments, committed ourselves in principle to reaching an agreement on the conservation of endangered species. The agreement provides for the identification, the conservation and the recovery of all endangered species wherever they are in Canada.

I am gratified that the governments of all the provinces and territories have agreed to be our partners, to focus on the requirements of nature and to ensure that this new bill will protect our wildlife.

[English]

It means, therefore, that we are already willing to work together, and Canadians would have it no other way. To date, six provincial governments have signed the accord. We have also agreed to form a Canadian endangered species conservation council, made up of ministers with responsibility for wildlife, to provide the political will and political muscle to oversee and drive this accord into the future.

The provincial and territorial governments have also agreed in principle to prepare complementary legislation and programs necessary to conform to the accord. Since that accord, it's a pleasure to note that the Province of Nova Scotia, for instance, has tabled such legislation.

For us, Bill C-65 represents the federal government's part of that bargain. This legislation says species at risk must be assessed and designated by COSEWIC in order to be considered for formal listing.

.1545

I am interested in what the committee has to say about the listing process, with the understanding that the federal government needs to be an accountable player or variable in that equation and process, and also uphold science as best it can.

We've also included stronger provisions for direct citizenship participation. I realize that some people, in particular those in the resource sector, are concerned that by giving individual Canadians the right to sue we are heading down some kind of slippery slope toward the American model, where litigation seems to be a daily occurrence brought about by private citizens, which has also led to delays in development and additional expenses for companies.

I don't believe that is where we are headed at all with this bill. On the contrary, I believe the vast majority of our businesses already understand that Canadians will simply not accept actions that put species in danger. The Canadian people want to be heard, and this bill will allow them to be heard fully and forcefully.

Concern has also been expressed by private landowners and farmers that the act will interfere with their right to the use of their properties. As a general rule, the act will not limit activities on private property, as you all well know. But we have put flexibility into the act, which will allow us to work in cooperation with Canadian farmers and landowners to protect federal species on their properties.

Let me stress, for I think it needs stressing, that farmers, ranchers, and other landowners have been rather magnificent in their contribution to helping us save endangered species. The swift fox and the burrowing owl come immediately to mind, for instance. In today's clippings, in both Canada and the United States, there was testimony to that very fact.

We will consult with the private sector and the public to further the discussion on ways to encourage voluntary endangered species protection. Some of you made a point of talking to me about that very point when the bill came out and during the committee testimony.

Some concerns have also been expressed by territorial governments about the application of a law, in relation to responsibility previously delegated to them, for game species. I've already met with Minister Stephen Kakfwi from the Northwest Territories, who was before your committee in Edmonton, and I'm sure we can agree on a mutually acceptable process that will protect endangered species in those areas. Again, I await any comments or advice you may have to facilitate such a process and solution.

I also want to be clear that aboriginal concerns are and will be taken into account at every stage. We want and need aboriginal advice and guidance, particularly with regard to traditional knowledge and observance, and this is built into the very process. There have also been some comments on the need to clarify definitions of critical habitat, and I welcome any comments and suggestions you may have on this subject.

In closing, I want to say I think this bill is a valuable and important first down payment toward helping us better protect species at risk. We have built into it an initial three-year review to make sure this new regime is working the way it is intended to work - that we will have put nature first with a legislative regime that is open, transparent, and accessible to one and all.

One of its most important aspects is the public participation partnership, including lawsuits, to keep the heat on all level of government. But beyond legal suits and courts, I believe the court of public opinion will be the major factor in any success we may reach. After all, Canada in 1997 is where Europe, for instance, was about 125 years ago, in terms of abundance of wildlife and richness of our biodiversity. In Europe they now put wild animals on their coats of arms and even name cities after bears, but just about the only real animals Europeans enjoy are the ones they find in their zoos, or the ones they find when they visit us in greatly increasing numbers in Canada.

In Canada we have an opportunity to be different, and for the sake of our children and the generations to come we must remember what happened in places like Europe and elsewhere on the globe and not get caught up in the unrelenting chase of industrial development at any cost.

.1550

Canadians of all ages, of all backgrounds, from all regions of the country, both rural and urban, want this legislation. So it's up to us to deal with it as quickly and as firmly as we can, and to make it better if we can, but above all and at the end of the day to make it part of Canadian law within the life of this Parliament.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay, would you like to start off?

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Minister, on October 2 of last year, you signed with your provincial and territorial counterparts a national agreement for the conservation of endangered species. This agreement created a new framework of cooperation among governments in order to protect our wildlife. Since the signing of this agreement in Charlottetown, you have brought in this bill. The way various provinces and territories have reacted to it shows that the bill is not congruent with the principle set out in the agreement. You have twisted the Charlottetown agreement to you own ends, leaving the provinces and territories high and dry with their good will and their illusions.

An eagerness to translate into fact the promises contained in the Red Book seems to have dominated this agreement. You are surely aware of the various parts of the bill which have not met with the approval of the provinces and territories. Mr. Minister, would you indicate to us those parts that the provinces cannot seem to abide and do you intend to propose any amendments tending to make the bill congruent with the agreement signed with the provinces?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: I mentioned that one of the strengths of this bill, from our standpoint as a federal government, and myself personally, is in the whole area of partnership and the recognition that this is a shared jurisdiction. Therefore, I think the accord we all signed in Charlottetown some months ago is an important piece of the overall puzzle. I don't think it would be simply good enough to have a federal piece of legislation without the complementary pieces of the puzzle that are part of the provincial and territorial governments' jurisdictions.

I was very enthused by the fact that governments were able to come across in Charlottetown and put nature first, rather than putting turf first, which has been the tradition in this country on this file. It's part of the reason why we haven't been able to be as successful as groups and Canadians want us to be.

I made it very clear at that meeting in Charlottetown that in terms of international species that cross our borders, the Canadian government could not and would not remain silent. When you ask me what are the major points of divergence, perhaps you might want to suggest a few, since you led with that question. From my vantage point, it seems to be revolving in part around section 33 as to the international cross-border....

I made it very clear to the ministers at the formal as well as informal sessions that there would be in the legislation a reference to how the Canadian government would deal with species that cross international borders. I also made it clear that we would want to do it in such a way as not to undermine the accord and not to come down with a situation that would be devoid of any provincial cooperation and engagement.

I think when you look at section 33 it is in fact something that would be expected by most Canadians of a Canadian government. It is something that I also said in the context of the United States and Mexico when we hosted the NAFTA environmental commission in Toronto. The whole question of protecting these species came up from a continental perspective, that clearly the Canadian government would have to take some leadership and express itself.

That doesn't mean that the province cannot engage a neighbouring state, but in the case where there is no state-to-province agreement or where there is no equivalency, I think you have a void, and I think the Canadian government needs to fill that void.

.1555

So I disagree with the premise of your question, that somehow section 33 undermines the accord we all signed. I don't see it that way. I think it's in keeping with the accord, insofar as making sure there are no vacuums left, so that we can have a complete safety net rather than a patchwork quilt.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Are you telling us, Mr. Minister, that you will not entertain any amendments to Section 33 of the bill?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: Certainly, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, I came here to discuss with you the endangered species bill. I'm also prepared, as I said, to consider adjustments you may wish to make to this bill. It's not for me to say simply, before you even get into the stage of presenting amendments, which ones are good, bad, or indifferent without even seeing the spirit and the context in which they're offered.

So I await the amendments and the advice from this committee. But I think it was very clear that those provincial ministers knew exactly the position of the Canadian government before they agreed to that accord.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Minister, before you came up with this bill, a task force was struck in 1995 to formulate recommendations concerning a future bill. For more than a year, representatives of the various interest groups - not to say of the often opposed interest groups - met and reached a consensus on a number of recommendations.

After you brought in this bill, the members of the task force expressed a clear dissatisfaction and urged you to modify the bill on a number of important points. Let me quote, as an example, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, which in its brief stated:

[English]

The Task Force represents a rare instance where industry, land users and environmental groups, by working together, were able to agree on the contents of a major piece of environmental legislation. It is recommended that the legislation be amended in several critical areas...to make it consistent with the Task Force report. This will send a strong signal that will encourage this type of cooperation in the development of future legislation.

[Translation]

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, also a member of the task force, has focused on those parts of Bill C-65 that diverge significantly both from the task force's final report and from the national agreement. The Association stated, and I quote:

Bill C-65, in its present form, is unacceptable as it will be prejudicial to the cooperation between federal and provincial governments and important stakeholders of the private sector.

Considering these briefs, Mr. Minister, it is clear that the bill you have brought in does not meet the expectations of the members of the task force. How can it be, Mr. Minister, that you have managed, with Bill C-65, to dissatisfy almost everyone. Of what use have the consultations and recommendations of the various groups been, not to mention the national agreement?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: On the contrary, if you look at the task force recommendations and at the bill, it would be my submission that roughly 80% of those recommendations find a home and place in the very bill we are discussing.

The task force would also recommend that the federal government take action on international cross-border species, for instance, which was the subject of your earlier question. In fact, they go so far as to suggest that the federal government should also be much more vigilant and much more aggressive on interprovincial cross-border species.

So when you say the task force, you should quote the wide view of the task force in the sense that I think the vast majority of the recommendations have been accommodated. I think where the task force probably differs is that it would have hoped for the federal government to be even more aggressive in view of the provincial and territorial right to the whole question of wildlife. I'm not sure if you're saying you agree, therefore, with the task force on this, vis-à-vis the federal government, vis-à-vis the provincial and territorial responsibilities.

.1600

Perhaps nothing in any bill would satisfy 100% of all Canadians, all stakeholders. I'm sure we can all quote in various pieces of legislation where someone disagrees with one aspect, or where members of your political party or my political party vary from one or two aspects of the platform as a whole. But then you have to ask yourself at the end of the day whether it is a reasonable accommodation of all the various interest groups. Is it a reasonable compromise, or have principles been compromised that shouldn't have been? I feel after the task force reported - and I think it did an excellent job - this bill reflects that task force much better than an earlier government response did.

So I think we're quite close. There's obviously always going to be some group you can quote that might not see it exactly that way, but on balance I think it's a very fair and strong attempt to put nature first and to get on with the business of protecting wildlife.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, please.

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

Welcome to the environment committee Mr. Minister. You know in the past I've been somewhat critical of your predecessors about over-politicizing or trying to make political hay out of environmental issues, but before us now we have the endangered species bill, and certainly we can say no one should be seeking to make political gain on the backs of our fuzzy little creatures in Canada. In other words, we shouldn't play politics with the environment. So I was encouraged when, I suppose through your designation, the current bill went directly to committee. By doing that I think you gave some clear signals that you are open to some broader consultation. I must say we on the committee have certainly heard loud and clear from all points of view as we've travelled across the country.

Today you've referred to consultation, but not a lot to compensation. The bill outlines some national objectives, but clearly national objectives should be supported by national resources. In other words, there should be a safety net for landowners and business enterprise, to prevent unforeseen financial hardship as we struggle to meet national goals of protecting wildlife and the general ideals of conservation.

I know we have a reputation for wanting to have a government that is fiscally responsible and to make the government live within its means. Therefore, I know we can't have a compensation clause in the bill that in effect is a blank cheque that essentially rewrites the budget via the back door with unfunded and open-ended commitments. We can't do that. However, I do think we need to go further than the current bill in calming some of the fears in the agricultural community about potential unreasonable interference and even unforeseen business loss. In other words, I think clause 8 needs to be strengthened.

The second ``c'' I'm going to talk about besides compensation is consultation. You have talked about that. I think the bill has a tone of consultation, but in my view it really doesn't go far enough to calm the fears that consultation cannot be fulfilled in just a brief manner. It's easy to say you've consulted and then go off and do your own thing. What I'm saying is I think the bill fails to provide stakeholders and those affected somewhat of a guarantee of ongoing standing for the decisions and the deliberations, a right to be involved in the process; not just, well, we're going to talk to you, but that the ongoing consultations are written into the bill. I think the good spirit of the legislation can be improved to fulfil the intent better and the consultation clauses can actually build an investment of goodwill and good results, rather than result in some confrontation, which we always want to avoid.

Lastly I want to address the issue of the philosophical underpinnings of the bill. Throughout the bill, in several places, it talks, at the decision-making point, about it being biologically and technically feasible, but I must wonder also about the socio-economic concerns in those equations. We have a variety of vectors we must consider. If we're going to fulfil sustainable development, that also includes what is socio-economically feasible. I think I'll be tendering some amendments in that regard for which I hope to gain the support of my colleagues.

.1605

In conclusion, I ask that you respond to those three items: consultation, compensation, and the balancing of socio-economic concerns as we move towards sustainable development.

I still think there's a lot of fear in rural Canada about the long arm of Ottawa. I think dealing with at least these items can make us feel a lot better. Hopefully, stakeholders will feel more willing to cooperate to make the act really work in the field.

There are many technical improvements that can be made to the bill. But for you, as minister, I look forward to you wisely setting forth the underpinnings of how it will operate with respect to the larger issues of consultation, compensation, and a balance of science that includes our socio-economic reality today.

Mr. Marchi: Your first ``c'', compensation, is an area that you have brought to my attention in the past. You have certainly served notice, and you've done a fair degree of work on it. I appreciate that. I've tried to be as helpful as I can.

It's also an issue that poses a dilemma. Obviously, I understand that we have measures in the bill that would enforce what we say in terms of penalties. I have heard that some of the Canadians who have come before this committee who are ranchers, landowners, or farmers have said, hold on a second; we've been playing ball with governments and with wildlife for a long time and all of a sudden you take that voluntary goodwill approach from us and you try to put this onerous regime of penalties on us.

Let me say that regime was not put in place to undermine the kind of cooperation that exists or to highlight any particular group. As I said in my initial remarks, I think people who live off the land - farmers, landowners, hunters, anglers - have certainly led in the battle of saving wildlife. This is not meant to try to formalize an approach when the voluntary approach has in fact worked well.

But it's difficult, as you yourself mentioned, to have a clause with a bottomless pit in terms of compensation. In clauses 7 and 8, the bill tried almost to take consolation from the task force that Monique mentioned, because on this task force we also had representatives from the farming community and the agricultural side of our country, and they weren't able to come to a consensus to recommend a clause for some form of compensation. What they said, if I recall correctly, is that at the most, in emergency or extreme situations and circumstances, we should try to deal with compensation in the recovery plan aspect of the process. They too had a tough time grappling with it, so we've tried to build mechanisms outside the text of the bill in terms of raising funds and in terms of perhaps using the tax system, as Mr. Martin started to do in the last budget with regard to ecologically sensitive lands. We've talked about the possibility of a task force to look at this problem specifically.

I understand that in a matter of days there will be a session specifically aimed at this whole question of how we square the circle on compensation. This session will include farmers, environmentalists, and other Canadians.

It's a situation that's not easy to deal with because of the prudence of governments that deal with things in a fiscally responsible fashion. Again, I await any adjustments or amendments, Paul, that you may wish to make as to how we strengthen clauses 7 and 8 in order to try to get that message of partnership across.

With respect to consultation, I think the government is serious when we talk about consultation and partnership, because without them, I don't think we're going to have that national safety net, if you will.

.1610

That's why, for instance, I met with the minister from the Northwest Territories. It wasn't our intention, through the bill, to get into the whole question of the game species they have been handling, and handling well, for many years. It wasn't the intention of the bill.

On the other hand, we don't want to leave a vacuum in that part of the country, especially since those territories don't have legislation or equivalent regulations on the books. It's a question of how we work with Stephen in the Northwest Territories to ensure that his concerns and ours are met. As I said, I think there's a way out.

So I think consultation and cooperation have to be the hallmarks of this issue. It's obviously multidimensional, engaging not only different levels of government but also Canadians, obviously, whether they be urban dwellers or rural.

In terms of the philosophical underpinnings, again, I think it's at the time of recovery plans that we have to crunch that balance...the socio-economics and the trade-offs. That's what the recovery plan in part is intended to do.

Mr. Forseth: You just hinted at something I was wondering about. You talked about outside, non-government solutions. You know I have made some suggestions to you about this, that not every solution has to be in a statute. There are other operations of government.

You mentioned a task force of the agricultural community, landowners and so on, that's going to look particularly at this issue of compensation. We do know a couple of funds in Canada are operating. We have the example of those who ship oil off the east coast, who have to pay a premium into an emergency fund for precipitous loss. Various land recovery and cover programs have been used in the past.

Maybe you can elaborate a little bit more and use the opportunity today to boost the prospects of this particular task force.

Mr. Marchi: It's a task force that I would like to see examine the issue of support for such voluntary efforts. A group is coming together in a matter of days to do that.

I'll ask my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Bob Slater, to give you an update on those gifted lands I talked about in terms of the provisions in the last budget. I didn't introduce him because I think he shared some time with you earlier in the day.

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

In fact, a colleague who was here this morning, Sheila Forsyth, made reference to that task force the minister has just described.

One important aspect currently in place is the ability of landowners who hold ecologically valuable lands to donate those lands to a charitable foundation and then receive a tax benefit equal to the original valuation of those lands. This provision was introduced in June of 1996, so it's early days yet in terms of its application, but to date, over 20 properties across Canada have been donated or are near to conclusion.

These gifted lands cover almost 3,500 hectares, or more than 7,000 acres. They are valued at $8.5 million and include such things as ocean cliffs used by nesting seabirds; salt marsh at Cape Enrage in New Brunswick; foothills rangeland in Alberta; and the Wainfleet peatbog in Ontario. Those are all of international significance and have tremendous ecological and biological value.

That is a clear engagement of the federal government in contributing to the solution that in some instances will be extremely important to endangered species.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Adams, please.

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

Minister, we are very pleased that there's been so much progress between the last presentation by the government and the one we have before us. We really appreciate that.

We also realize that relations with the territories and the provinces are extremely important in this matter. There are limits to the federal power.

You mentioned that you'd met with Stephen Kakfwi from the NWT, as did we. We also met with representatives of the Yukon, particularly first nations in the Yukon. There was a good deal of concern there about conflicts between the federal position, the territorial position, and the first nations' position within the territories. Since the territories represent 40% of the country, they have a very special significance, and since they are relatively pristine, they are very special under this legislation, in terms of species. They also have special significance in terms of the migratory species that go over the rest of the country.

.1615

I know, as you have mentioned, Nova Scotia has introduced endangered species legislation, and four other provinces, including the two largest, now have such legislation. I wonder if you would care to talk about the way you see arrangements developing with the territories and the sense you have from the provinces that don't yet have endangered species legislation.

Mr. Marchi: Thank you, Peter.

I foresee that the relationships with the territories will be smooth and some of those issues of concern, which are legitimate, will and should be resolved, because as you have mentioned, the vastness of that territory, its pristine nature...yet the serious threats that are imposed in that part of the country, are real. I've always had a sense, whenever I've travelled the territories, that their concern for the land was first and foremost, because for them the land is not simply an environmental issue; the land and the life of the land are part of their life, day in and day out. That's why I said we have no desire to interfere in the whole aspect of game species management, but we certainly wanted to ensure, insofar as the federal government was concerned, we had a holistic solution.

Secondly, my feeling in dealing with provincial ministers of wildlife is that all of them are sincere and genuine in wanting to make efforts to protect wildlife. I don't come at this by saying this minister or this government has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to wildlife. Again, some provinces have had legislation on the books, as you've mentioned, before the federal government has had it. Others have not had endangered species legislation named as such but have managed wildlife in other areas. All of them at the same time are aware that the different pieces of the puzzle have to come together.

The question is are we all big enough to overcome those turf wars that have traditionally hurt not only this issue but many other issues when it comes to Canada, and great frustrations among the citizens you and I represent? Are we all big enough to recognize that each of those levels of government has a piece of the puzzle and if we do everything we can within that respective piece the puzzle is going to be that much stronger?

It's when we begin to put the various pieces at loggerheads, when, as I mentioned in my earlier appearance, we begin to quibble and debate the rock the bird lands on rather than focusing on the bird and ensuring it flies again, that the puzzle is weak, that the friction starts, that the solutions are further away, and that everybody does their own thing, and everybody doing their own thing is not what we should be doing for the preservation of those species.

I thought the accord in P.E.I. was a surprising development, because I think we all surprised ourselves that it can be done. But it also hopefully says and signals that everyone is serious about getting the job done right.

I believe this legislation is our response to that. It's not a response that tries to undermine or to consolidate. In fact, all you have to do is to see the critics from some of the NGO communities who have said the federal government hasn't gone far enough. They would have wanted us to go a much longer distance. But I think we have to keep that puzzle and that equilibrium in mind, and I think this bill does that.

Mr. Adams: Thank you very much.

The interesting thing, Minister, is that it seems to me people often say species don't recognize the level of government, but I also think people actually don't. So in the jurisdictions you mentioned, be they municipal, provincial or territorial, the elected representatives are actually representing the same people.

.1620

We've heard very good testimony and enormous support for legislation of this type from all across the country, from every region, and from rural areas and urban areas. So again, I commend you for what you've done so far.

In conclusion, I was really glad you mentioned the so-called ``critical habitat'' issue in your remarks. As much as I can, I will be supporting amendments that strengthen the habitat parts of the legislation. I don't know if you'd care to comment on that now, but I noticed that you did actually raise it in your remarks.

Mr. Marchi: In terms of Canadians rallying around this kind of bill - that's not to say this particular bill specifically, but what it attempts to achieve - there can be no question, Peter. In fact, I think I've mentioned to this committee before that if I list all the issues that people across the country write, call, fax or cable us about, the issue that clearly is a mile ahead of any others revolves around protecting wildlife and endangered species. Whether it's young or not so young, whether it's urban or rural, there's a connection across the board. So I would have expected that as it travelled across the country, the committee would have connected with this bedrock of support.

I think you're right. I think many Canadians, like many of those endangered species, are colour-blind when it comes to provincial, federal, and territorial jurisdictions. But I think if governments respect each jurisdiction, we will be able to deliver on the aspirations of Canadians.

Insofar as the habitat is concerned, it's clear that the loss of endangered species is obviously related to the loss of habitat. No one can argue anything but that. We've tried to address habitat in the context of the bill, in the context of emergency situations, in the context of recovery plans. If you want to refine and indeed strengthen the definition or clarity of critical habitat, I'm also open to it. I would certainly be happy to entertain that.

Again, in an indirect way, habitat speaks about federal-provincial harmony as well. When you talk about critical habitat, I think everyone has a different definition. If we keep the equilibrium of the different jurisdictions in mind, and if we can enhance the ``critical habitat'' definition in the bill, then I certainly would be prepared to consider such in the scope of the bill before us.

Mr. Adams: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Benoit, followed by Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. In your presentation you said:

As a general rule, the Act will not limit activities on private property. But we put flexibility into the Act that will allow us to work in cooperation with farmers and landowners to protect federal species on their property.

I guess it's that exception to the rule that concerns me, and it concerns many of the people I talk to, particularly farmers and ranchers.

I would just like you to comment on the fact that this legislation can fall outside of the general rule and can in fact cost an individual landowner quite dearly. Particularly, could you just comment on the fact that this general rule does allow for the exception and would allow for considerable costs to fall on the shoulders of the individual landowner?

Mr. Marchi: I think you articulated it well. You essentially said that in general the rule will apply. I think the bill is very much in a position to recognize that. You're asking how we accommodate or address the exceptions to the rule, however few and far between they may be. I guess that's the struggle that both you and Paul have registered, and I appreciate that. The question is how to deal with an exception without creating the expectation that when you deal with the ``c'' word, compensation, there is somehow going to be a free flow of compensation for one and all.

.1625

So the question is how to strengthen clauses 7 and 8. Perhaps you might have the suggestions, or you might have an amendment. We have tried to struggle with this, we have reached out to the committee, and the task force before us struggled with it.

Moments ago Bob mentioned one aspect that seems to have gotten off to a good start, but it's still early days, as he mentioned.

So we're also seeking those kinds of bridges that can accommodate the exception to the rule. That's why I'd be prepared to entertain any recommendations that this committee will be in a position to recommend in a matter of days.

Mr. Benoit: I think it's encouraging that you at least acknowledged that there could be a serious problem with certain individuals in this regard. Something has to be put into this legislation to ensure that it's just not going to be more of a burden than they can carry. Again, this is a concern that I hear quite commonly from farmers and ranchers.

I guess I'd like to ask you a very direct question. What cost would you impose on either an individual landowner or on society to protect an endangered species? What's the maximum cost? As you have worked at putting this legislation together, what limit have you set in your mind as a maximum amount of money, a maximum cost, in terms of infringing on use of private property?

Mr. Marchi: I didn't come at it from that perspective. I didn't start with amounts of money, with where the threshold was or where the cut-off would be. Instead, I started on the other end. Unlike some old, unfair stereotypes, I began with how to work with rural Canadians, with farmers, hunters, and fisherman, who by and large have done an exemplary job in terms of protecting wildlife.

In the headlines of one of today's newspapers, it suggested that hunters in Vancouver rallied to save starving wildlife. Who are the members of this coalition, of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association? We find that they're ``hunters, anglers, trappers, ranchers, wildlife clubs, guide outfitter groups, and wildlife supporters from the southeastern part of our province''.

At the time of the introduction, I was in the parliamentary restaurant with a number of couples from western Canada. They showed me pictures of their property and of the things they were doing with it. I was staggered at the kinds of personal commitments people had. I therefore started from the premise that there's a lot of goodwill. How do we create a bill that builds on that partnership?

Now the question is one of how the government or the voluntary community responds if there is a hardship imposed in those exceptions. How does society in general respond when it is known that the people are in fact just trying to earn a living, like any other person in the city? We're struggling with that, and I await some specific amendments or resolutions to this that we perhaps haven't figured out.

Mr. Benoit: But as the minister responsible you must have thought about this. You must have answered the question about what cost you would be willing to impose on an individual or on society to save an endangered species.

Mr. Marchi: Again, I started on the other side: what is the cost to wildlife if we're indifferent?

Mr. Benoit: You may have started on the other side, but somewhere along the way you have surely asked yourself that question. You must have answered it.

Mr. Marchi: Do you think there is an answer to that question? If you think about it -

Mr. Benoit: I think there had better be, because it's a real concern if, as the government and as the minister responsible for this legislation, you're not answering and are not willing to answer that question.

Mr. Marchi: The answer to the primary question is what cost we will pay if we were not to have a piece of endangered species legislation. The price we would pay is the price Europe and many parts of Asia have already paid.

I haven't thought of that threshold. Maybe you have, and maybe you can tell me your price. What cost have you determined as a threshold? What should be the socio-economic balance?

.1630

I'm not trying to play cute here. I haven't figured out that figure. If you have, tell me what yours is.

Mr. Benoit: It seems to me that you have answered the question as to what cost a loss of species would be, but you haven't answered that other question.

Mr. Marchi: Have you answered it?

Mr. Benoit: I'm not the minister responsible.

Mr. Marchi: But have you a suggestion to make to the minister in terms of what that level should be?

Mr. Benoit: No, I'm just looking for an answer from you, because surely as the minister you have one for this.

Again, the problem here is that I think landowners, learning that you really haven't answered that question even for yourself, are going to find themselves more concerned maybe than they were before.

Our two concerns have been expressed to you by my colleague. One is the difficulty this could impose on individuals because there aren't proper provisions for compensation. To me, there doesn't seem to be really much of a plan for not only compensation but for, say, cooperative funding.

Some groups, like Ducks Unlimited, for example, have done a very good job of finding cooperative funding to build a species up. But it doesn't seem to me that's really in this legislation.

Of course, the second concern that ranchers and farmers have expressed to me is that there hasn't been a cooperative approach in putting this legislation together, and they don't see the proper cooperation. They don't see that when it comes to their property they will be given an important enough role in implementing the plan to save the species.

Those are the real concerns I've heard, and I'd like you to respond to those concerns on behalf of farmers and ranchers who have talked to me, and others I know who haven't.

Mr. Marchi: I think there has been a spirit of cooperation and partnership throughout this process, whether it was in the earlier response, where people had an opportunity...whether it's in the task force, whether it is in the days to come, where people are actually coming together to try to square this circle.

If you look at the recovery plan, that's where I think your kind of price tag as well as other variables will be addressed, because the recovery plan is not something that is just for governments or for departments. The recovery plan is truly at the community level. It incorporates, and there's an inclusiveness in the recovery plan.

So you say, Minister, give me a price or a threshold that you have figured out for some kind of limit, when in fact the circumstances can vary dramatically from one coast to the other.

At the recovery plan is where I think individual Canadians, with their governments, with the voluntary sector, will come together to look at a particular situation and then determine in the wholeness of that solution whether part of that solution should indeed be compensation for a private landowner who may have a bird in their fields that is endangered, and that farmer may not be able to plough for that season until that recovery plan comes into fruition. It's in the wholeness of that solution, at the local level of recovery, that the price tag should be determined, and not on high by government in Ottawa that says, here's this threshold that is really going to be the bean counter.

It's at the recovery plan that we're investing, and if there shall be compensation, we're asking what the creative mechanisms are that we can unleash in order to perhaps be in a position to offer that compensation, if that compensation is determined to be a part of the solution at the recovery plan.

I think it's smart to put the recovery plan at the local level, in Alberta or Ontario, rather than a threshold determined by some minister.

Mr. Benoit: That has to be thought about before this legislation actually passes.

What you say is very nice, but let's look at a situation where an endangered species has been found on private property. We get into a workout plan and it's costing the landowner more than they can afford. The community just isn't willing to throw in any more money and we don't have a plan in place for the taxpayers, generally, to fund this workout plan. Then what happens? It's nice to say, but how far are you willing to actually go in imposing costs on the private individual in that situation, and indeed on our whole society through taxpayers' money?

.1635

Mr. Marchi: To try to get one number or one specific answer to what sounds like a simple question but which obviously has some very real implications, I think one has to tread carefully before answering. Again, I feel that it's at the recovery plan stage that those answers will be arrived at, rather than some kind of authoritative statement quoting some kind of threshold.

Mr. Benoit: If that's the case, then why do we need this legislation at all?

We already have cooperation between landowners and others who want to save endangered species. If, as you're saying, you're going to count on this recovery plan, then that's happening already, voluntarily. So really, what's this legislation going to do to help that along?

Mr. Marchi: Look, I think this legislation has a lot to do with a lot of things. Landowners and their role in it is obviously one integral part. But the whole mechanism of prohibition, of recovery plans, of intergovernmental cooperation, of cross-border species internationally - this bill is obviously going to advance the case of protection for endangered species.

We shouldn't only value this entire package on some exceptions such as you've mentioned that are going to be at the minimum at some unforeseen stage down the road. I think we have to deal with that eventuality. That's why I think in the recovery plan, in the flexibility that exists, and in the partnership is where we're going to come from with a solution, as opposed to coming from the top and at the outset of the bill.

Mr. Benoit: I have one final question.

I agree there's a lot about this legislation that does make sense and that I think is good. There is this area, though, with some very serious problems in it, this whole area of compensation and the proper involvement of the landowner, who also wants to protect the species.

Will you commit to amendments that will put certainty in that area so that landowners won't be left wondering what costs could be imposed on them?

Mr. Marchi: I'm prepared to consider the amendments this committee asks me and our government to consider. I'm not prepared to come today and close the door before I've even seen what amendments and for what purposes.

I've indicated to your colleague that if he and you and others can put amendments forward on sections 7 and 8 that would strengthen...keeping in mind the problem that I think both of you have stated, that it's difficult to put in a compensation clause that would have a black hole.

I know many times in the House you rake us over the coals on the fiscal side for subsidizing, or for assisting, or for the grants we give. So I think one has to be prudent with trying to articulate the problem as well as coming up with the right kind of solution. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Mr. Benoit: That's exactly why - -

The Chairman: Your time is up.

It's a pity you didn't travel with us to Edmonton and Vancouver, because contrary to what you have said, namely that this is happening already, you would have had an opportunity to hear from the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists, Nature Saskatchewan, the Regina Natural History Society, the Alberta Wilderness Association, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Saskatoon Nature Society, the Manitoba Naturalists Society, all saying this legislation is badly needed, that it is time we bring it in, that it is highly welcome. Therefore, this is not happening out there. People are waiting for this kind of legislation. It is also supported by an Angus Reid poll about which you probably read last Tuesday in The Globe and Mail.

I have to cut you off now because there are other colleagues who want to ask questions, but if you had been with us last week you would have had ample opportunity to pursue these questions.

Mr. Benoit: Can't I just respond quickly in one sentence to the -

The Chairman: No, Mr. Benoit, you've had your chance.

Madame Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Taylor, followed by Mr. Steckle.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

.1640

I'd like to echo what the chair has just said. While we were out west in Edmonton, a rancher appeared before the committee who had a very different take on this piece of legislation. He thought it was good, it was effective, and it was much needed. One of the things he said to us was that we must never forget that as human beings, we are in nature; we are ourselves nature.

I had the pleasure of meeting with three of Canada's most distinguished scientists. One of them, Dr. Digby McLaren, is an extinction scientist. He told a story about the grizzly bear and our concerns around the preservation of the grizzly bear as a species. One of the things we have to realize is that when we save the grizzly bears, we save the microbes in the soil. Ranchers and farmers in your part of the country and the farmers in my part of the country need those microbes in their soil. So when we work as a nation, from coast to coast to coast, to save species that are endangered and threatened and vulnerable, we save those farms and the ranches as well.

I want to refer the minister's attention to a part of the legislation having to deal with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. Within the national accord, ministers from across this country agreed last fall that: species do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries; the conservation of species at risk is a key component of the Canadian biodiversity strategy, which is an international agreement as part of our contribution to an international agreement; and governments have a leadership role in providing sound information and measures for conservation. They're agreeing that species conservation initiatives should be met through complementary federal and provincial legislation.

One of the things they had also talked about in this accord, which is reflected in this legislation - and this is why I feel this legislation works very well with the accord - is that they want to, and have agreed to, participate in the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

I wonder if the minister can elaborate a bit on this council, on how you see it might function, how it might be set up, that type of thing.

Mr. Marchi: I think the conservation council was given birth to at that meeting in Charlottetown because there was a desire on the part of everyone to ensure that everyone would be engaged, and engaged at the ministerial level. You wouldn't lose momentum and wouldn't have just a bureaucratic exercise. You would have an opportunity to perhaps resolve disputes or difficulties. We didn't want those disputes or difficulties to run down the system. We almost wanted a dispute resolution mechanism.

So the council grew out of a commitment, really, from everyone around the table to ensure that federal and provincial pieces of legislation, married by this accord, would in fact be reality. It was also envisioned that difficulties would arise from time to time and the council would be in a position to resolve those difficulties as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Some of the provinces have suggested to us that it should be better defined for the purposes of the bill. I don't see anything wrong with trying to provide greater definition and greater clarity in terms of this council. The committee may want to also offer its views as we try to ensure that the council is what everybody intended it to be - a council that will engage and galvanize and take care of those disputes before they mushroom into something bigger.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, please.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia, and welcome to the minister. It's good to see you again.

Areas of jurisdiction are important. Compensation is important. I may, if I get a chance, come back to a couple of those things, but I'm prompted today in my questioning to discuss the letter written yesterday and released to the public today, a letter written to the Prime Minister and signed by 300 scientists from across Canada, scientists who are zoologists, directors of centres of biodiversity research, biologists, chemists, and people who work with wildlife, plants, and invertebrates.

.1645

The bottom line for the 300 who signed this letter to the Prime Minister is that on the whole, the legislation, as it appears now, is a step forward...but the bottom line for them is that it does not provide adequate protection to ensure the survival of most endangered species in Canada.

Their first point, and I think their most important point, is the fact that the bill does not ensure the protection of habitats of endangered species. You said in answer to a question from Mr. Adams earlier that you would be open to entertain amendments with regard to critical habitat. I think I'm quoting you directly when I mention that you said you'd be willing to look at enhancing critical habitat definition in the bill.

The evidence we had before us on our visit to the west and other evidence before us here, which I know you're aware of, indicates that it's not just the definition that needs to be enhanced. There are clauses throughout the bill that deal with habitat, including the famous one about residence.

We even had members of the wildlife community appear before us who said they have never heard the word ``residence'' applied to the wildlife habitat in any other act or even used in reference to wildlife habitat.

It's very important that substantial changes be made to the provisions regarding habitat to, in the words of 300 scientists, ``provide adequate protection for most of the country's endangered species''.

I can't accept your feelings today that the bill is generally all right and that you're willing to entertain some housekeeping amendments. Have you heard the witnesses, the experts on habitat, testify with regard to habitat? Are you willing to consider substantive changes to the bill with regard to habitat protection?

Mr. Marchi: First, I'm aware of the letter that did go to the Prime Minister from 300 eminent and qualified Canadian scientists. My parliamentary secretary also met with them to try to engage them even further because I was unable to. Obviously, they make their case, and I certainly don't put into question the kind of expertise that these 300 Canadians bring to bear.

We've tried to deal with habitat squarely in the bill, as I mentioned earlier, whether it's at the recovery stage or the emergency stage. I realize that a number of people, including those who signed this latest letter, want the federal government to go further. We've heard from some other members who think I've gone too far. Therein lies the riddle in terms of the different pieces of the puzzle that come together and that, if they come together, can protect wildlife as we would want it to be protected.

So the federal legislation is geared specifically and directly to federal species, federal lands, and international cross-border species. Yes, it places some trust in provincial and territorial governments for interprovincial movement. A number of groups feel they were let down, that the federal government somehow didn't pronounce itself on the interprovincial movement, even though we're going to be involved at the joint recovery phase.

.1650

At the same time, if we recognize that there is a shared jurisdiction and that the provinces and territories have been doing things in this field, and you believe if the puzzle comes together then you're going to get a good output, you also simply can't want to be seen to do it all and in the final analysis to do it badly - because no one can do it all on their own.

The question is, Len, where is the cut-off between how far this bill can or should go....? At what part does the province and the territory then pick up the baton to give us the other piece of the puzzle?

I've mentioned that I'm willing, within the scope of this bill - otherwise, they'll be ruled out of order by the Speaker, not by me - to enhance as much as I possibly can without endangering, if you will, the other levels of government, which I think have to be part of the solution and will, I believe, be part of the solution. So it's that judgment call.

I'm sensitive to the criticisms. If I were doing it by myself it would have been a different answer, perhaps. The fact that we have to do it in balance with other levels of government and other partners obviously makes it a more limiting exercise than some people would have hoped for.

Mr. Taylor: My feeling right off the bat is that, first of all, weak as the bill might be in that it only applies to federal lands, your answer could be stronger with regard to what's within the jurisdiction of the bill. You could very easily accept, I would imagine, if you wanted to, within the full extent of the jurisdiction of the bill, habitat protection.

That brings me to my second question with regard to what is the full extent of the federal jurisdiction. Arguments have been raised before us that the full extent of the federal jurisdiction has not been examined closely in this bill and the full extent in fact could be pushed further. There are those who feel very strongly that it must be pushed forward. To them - and to me - the provinces cannot be trusted to maintain their end of the bargain, to establish, in other words, mirror legislation that covers provincial jurisdiction. The accord asks the provinces to sign on to provide something equivalent to what we're seeing here. It should be more than equivalent. It should be equal, I think.

In your own remarks you indicated that only six provinces have signed on to the accord. That leaves some pretty major holes in Canada. Secondly, some provinces seem to be thumbing their noses in this regard. We had testimony in the province of Alberta from people who are indicating that, with the cuts in the environment department in Alberta and with the government's response to how they may deal with this legislation, those concerned about endangered species in Alberta are very much concerned about having to deal with their provincial government when dealing with federally protected endangered species.

If I'm not mistaken, in the province of Alberta only about 3% of land mass in that province will actually be covered by this jurisdiction, and again, if I'm not mistaken, only four or five species, including plants and animals.

In that regard, if the provinces can't be forced to maintain their commitment under the accord, can't be trusted to maintain their voluntary commitment to the accord, why can't the federal government take the full extent of its jurisdiction and establish, if nothing else, very minimum standards - high standards, mind you, but minimum standards - that all of the provinces must meet?

Mr. Marchi: In terms of suggesting that this legislation is weaker than it should have had a right to be, again, I differ. I think the genie is out of the jar with respect to endangered species.

What do I mean by that? I mean that because of the attention this initiative has created across the country - there's been a lot - I don't think we will be able to go backwards. That is to say, I think the public will keep the heat on at all levels of government.

.1655

What I see for the first time is a federal piece of legislation on protection of endangered species. We could argue it should have been here 10, 15, or 20 years ago. I say hallelujah. We're playing catch-up. But what I see is a federal piece of legislation that deals honourably with its territory, its terrain, and its responsibility.

Then I see provinces, some of which already have legislation on the books, that want to do a better job. I see a national accord that was signed, to the surprise of most commentators, that would kind of bind both the federal and provincial attempts to protect endangered species.

You say that six out of ten have signed, which leaves us major gaps. A week before we met in Charlottetown no one dreamed we would have an accord, let alone six governments that had already signed. Hopefully, the other four will come on board. That's why we also have an earlier review of this legislation. Some of my cabinet colleagues would have preferred a five-year review. I said, no, I think it's important to keep the heat on; let's go with a three-year review.

I'm prepared to put some trust and faith into the fact that other Canadians and other governments feel equally as passionate about protecting species. We may find, Len, with a three-year review - which is very early in terms of federal legislation, because by the time you get up and running the three years are over - we will be able to say at a really early stage: Are things working? How many have signed the accord? Why are there still hold-outs? Or we'll say there's ten out of ten. There's still a problem with a territory. What is happening in Alberta, because it's not living up to its standards? You can use Alberta, or Ontario, my home province, whatever.' Therefore, the House of Commons will at the time be able to say, okay, was the medicine we tried to administer three years ago weak or is it working? Maybe we'll surprise ourselves. Maybe we'll find out that the federal, provincial, and territorial governments in partnership with Canadians will come together finally to protect species. We've tried to put species first.

I think we've been able to have some successes. Nova Scotia has come out with endangered species legislation since the accord. I'm not sure that would have happened without the kind of energies that have been invested for the better part of the last year.

I'm an optimist, and I'm hopeful that all Canadians and all levels of government will recognize the kind of heritage and definition preservation of wildlife means for an identity of a country like Canada and a people like Canadians.

I start from the premise that we have a lot of good things going and a lot of goodwill. Let's determine at that three-year pit stop where we stand. If we don't stand well enough and if the federal government should exercise more authority, that's something for that parliament to consider at that time.

Ultimately, Len, my greatest fear is that if we play the Russian roulette of turf wars, every month or year we give in to that exercise is another year that ticks for the endangered species. Perhaps we ought to be more tempered in our approach, and I think that is reflected in the bill. It doesn't undermine the accord; it complements it. It doesn't run roughshod over provincial jurisdictions. It doesn't tie the government up in lawsuits, where one government could take the other level of government to court.

I'm not interested in all of that. I'm interested in results at the end of the day. Could the different pieces come together to give us results? I think the chances are good, but if we fail three years hence, of course we'll need to go back to the drawing board to take a look at where the machinery isn't working and where the plumbing needs to be improved.

Mr. Taylor: I think the public is prepared to give you a stronger mandate in this regard. The published polls seem to indicate that. At the same time, I think they want the federal government to act within its full jurisdiction. If this doesn't meet the full jurisdiction, they're prepared to support you as you extend that.

I have one last quick question, complementary to the previous one, with regard to the compensation package. We talked about landowners, ranchers, and farmers, and I think there's a legitimate role to be played here by the federal government in ensuring that the full extent of cooperation is achieved.

.1700

I'm just wondering whether you consider that to also apply to people who work in the forestry or fishing industries - communities that may be affected by management plans that are developed. Would you consider amendments to take into account those impacts on communities or people who work within industries that are affected, loggers and fishers in particular, when it comes to taking a look at the effect of the endangered species protection or management plan?

Mr. Marchi: Again, in my view the recovery plan stage is not exclusive to any Canadian or Canadian interest. I think that is where the mettle will certainly be tested, and yet that is, arguably, the best place for these kinds of balances to be sought and arrived at.

I don't exclude any one interest, because obviously we all want to protect wildlife. It may be easy for one person from the city of Toronto to say that, yet a farmer who may be faced with not being able to plant crops in that season because of an endangered species or plant is not against protecting endangered species. As our Prime Minister said, he or she is very much interested in the ability and the dignity of putting bread and water on the table for his or her family and kids. We can't get into saying, well, they're against it. We can't see it as ``them''. The recovery plan has to see it as ``us'' and say we have this species or this plant. We also have a family that is obviously in dire straits. How do we reconcile the two?

Clearly there needs to be some common sense and a balance of the different ledger sheets. That's why a recovery plan is built the way it is, as opposed to the minister or the department somehow determining in a preliminary and premature way what the saw-offs are.

I think we have to come together as the royal ``we'' at the recovery stage, as opposed to trying to put people in different camps, because at the end of the day I think overwhelmingly all Canadians.... I looked at a number of polling analyses, and there is very aggressive support in the most rural parts of Canada for strong protection. I think everybody wants to play ball, but if someone is going to be hurt by that baseball, everybody on the team will want to do whatever they can to ensure the hurt is minimized.

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

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Mr. Minister, this has indeed been a very interesting piece of legislation. I feel very honoured and privileged to have been part of the discussions about it and to have listened to the various presentations.

For those who travelled with the committee in the past week, I want you to know there was a tremendous spirit of cooperation. We heard from both sides. As you mentioned earlier in your interpretation, some felt we had gone too far in this legislation and others felt we hadn't gone far enough. I think that's a fair interpretation of what we heard.

It's unfortunate that our colleague across the way wasn't able to join us, because I think he would have heard from both sides in a very well-spoken forum. I believe the people who presented their cases before us did so in a very meaningful way.

There were landowners, ranchers, farmers, and grasslands people. There were those from the scientific community who had a different approach and those who are truly environmentalists who had another approach.

If I understand what you said this afternoon, I believe you're favourably disposed to taking a look at amendments and improvements to this bill to make it a workable document. I guess we'll know how far you are prepared to go once we propose the changes, but I find some consolation in the fact that we can.

I think we've learned very much from this. There's been a very non-partisan participation in this process and, up until today, a great spirit of cooperation. Unfortunately, today we've had some questions posed that give us some concern. No, it's not the minister. In fact, it began to occur just before he came.

.1705

I think we've all tried to work for the common good. I think this issue is far too important to allow us to get bogged down by partisan politics, because in the end the losers are going to be the species we're trying to protect.

Those species have a great support base. The farmers are as interested in protecting the species as is any urbanite who enjoys watching the species come to his bird feeder every morning. I think there's a broad base of support for what we're doing here today.

I took some consolation in the fact that you said we've come a long way, although we have to go further. Cooperation and partnerships have to be built. I think that's important.

I was also pleased to see in your presentation this afternoon that you're prepared to look at traditional knowledge being applied, in terms of how we allow that knowledge to be part of understanding how we deal with this.

It's important to look back into our history at what happened to our prairies in the 1930s. The dust bowls were created simply because there was a mismanagement of that environment during a period of our history. Had we applied traditional knowledge, that might never have happened. I think we need to learn from some of these lessons. I also think we need to apply some of that knowledge in the interpretation of how we apply this bill.

As we move into the clause-by-clause in the next few days, I want to encourage you to allow us the latitude to take another look at some of these issues such as the citizen's suit so that we don't create a forum or turf for a legal battle, where lawyers are going to find themselves the winners and where, ultimately, the losers will be landowners, property owners, and of course the species.

I really don't have a question. I think most of the questions have already been asked, and we don't want to go back over that territory. I do just ask you to consider the kind of consideration we're going to be giving to the various clauses, because as I understand it, there are a lot of amendments.

I trust that with your cooperation and assistance all of us together at this table will help you find a common solution that will see both sides - although they perhaps may not be fully supportive of what we want to do - believing that they were heard, that we have listened, and that we have done the best we could, while of course keeping in context the scope of the bill and what you had hoped would be accomplished through this exercise.

I trust that spirit of cooperation will continue as we go into the next few days. I'm looking forward to seeing the final document in your hands. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Marchi: Thank you, Paul. As you know, and as you've said, I'm obviously bound by the scope of this bill, as indeed we all are. We're also bound by some timing in the sense that this issue has been around for some time. The previous government response and the task force work that some members referred to translated into a bill, and there's a sense that it's time to do it. There's a window in time. Of course, if it doesn't make it, it will start all over again. Who knows? It might come back in an improved state. On the other hand, who knows if it will come back at all, depending on what happens?

There is a moment in time where there's a sense that while we want to improve and touch up different areas, there's a bit of an impatience. I sense it out there. They're saying, okay, you're close; let's jump through that hoop. So within the scope of the bill and within the timeframe, I'm hoping we can make this bill into law.

I think there is a broad base of support for us to go through. There can be no doubting that, not for one moment.

With respect to the traditional knowledge, I think you're absolutely right in terms of farmers or aboriginal people. They act as our early warning systems. Many times a farmer or an aboriginal will tell a scientist or a minister or a member of Parliament things that he or she sees happening, whether it's on the land or with regard to weather patterns. I think we would be remiss in our advanced stage of technology and science if we didn't pay respect and attention to traditional knowledge. I think we incorporate it. It makes us all much stronger.

With regard to legal suits, I think that's a strength of the bill. I think the fact that we've been able to, in a courageous way, have that provision, that openness, that partnership for individual Canadians, to keep the feet of the government to the fire...and without being frivolous. If you look at the thresholds, it doesn't accommodate frivolous actions. It asks for legitimate investigations by the minister. Then, of course, we are in front of our citizens for accountability.

.1710

The Bill of Rights passed by the legislature of Ontario, for instance, has worked well. It hasn't resulted in the American-style ``see my lawyer'' type of response; it's dealt with the issue responsibly and honourably. I think this bill will be no different.

So I accept the good will and collective, collaborative spirit that I hope we can engage in. That's at the heart, anyway, of the success or failure of protection for endangered species.

Mr. Taylor: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: You may have a point of order as long as you don't interfere with the chair's intervention.

Mr. Taylor: This will be a brief point of order, Mr. Chair. I know you're next on the list and I know you have questions. I don't want to interfere with that.

In Mr. Steckle's question he said he didn't really have a question, because most of the questions had already been asked. I want to point out that he speaks for himself, not the committee. I think there are lots of questions yet to be asked.

The Chairman: Yes, he spoke for himself. At the same time, Mr. Steckle expressed some fine sentiments as to the experience he went through, which I fully share, and I'm sure you do too - namely, the experience we have...which has enriched us.

Mr. Steckle: Mr. Chairman, perhaps some of us were more observant and had resolved the questions in our minds before we came to this table.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions from the table before I intervene? Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: I do have other questions, and I'm sorry we don't have unlimited time. I respect your question time, Mr. Caccia. I will ask a very brief question. It's a bit technical.

Wendy Francis, who appeared before the committee in Edmonton, suggested that subclause 30(3) does not allow COSEWIC to list species that exist outside of federal jurisdiction.

I wonder if you have an interpretation of her legal concerns that in fact even the listing process in the bill may require some amendment if we're outside the jurisdiction, as interpreted today by the....

Mr. Marchi: Again, you're quoting a technician on a technical matter. I turn for a response to my technician so that we can be as precise as possible to her concerns, and if not, try to get an answer.

Mr. Slater: It's our understanding that COSEWIC has no restrictions on what technical and scientific advice it can offer. Over the last 25 years it has had a full scope and a full range of species that it's advised, falling in all categories, irrespective of the jurisdiction that has an accountability for the management of that species. The intention is to maintain that.

Mr. Marchi: In fact, if provincial governments wish to utilize COSEWIC, obviously they will also be getting recommendations pursuant to purely provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Taylor: I guess the point is, will you look at that with your people to ensure that the concern raised is in fact what is prepared in the bill?

Mr. Slater: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you for raising that point. It is very important.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay, go ahead.

Mrs. Guay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing my last question.

Mr. Minister, last Friday, on January 31, 1997, I met with the Environment Minister of Quebec, Mr. David Cliche, to discuss a number of issues, including Bill C-65. He told me how disappointed he was in many respects and said that this bill was not in keeping with the spirit of the Charlottetown agreement. He even wrote to you to say so on December 2 of last year. We will obviously be proposing amendments to the Bill.

.1715

I might add that Alberta's Minister gave Mr. Cliche his support. I hope we will be able to agree on a bill that will be effective and enforceable by all levels of government and that will not give rise to any legal or jurisdictional disputes between the various levels of government.

[English]

Mr. Marchi: I guess I share the same desire. I don't think federal-provincial wrangling gets us anywhere close to where we should be in terms of endangered species.

Let me also say that I've had many a discussion with the honourable David Cliche. I've found him to be a breath of fresh air in terms of the way he comes at problems. First, he came to what was a vacant seat for all too long. He not only filled it, but has played a very productive role. Outside of his ministership, he has a passion for and a knowledge of environment. I think we can work well together, and I think we can both put nature first and turf second.

Again, I've responded to those letters in the best way I can. I was very forthright in my deliberations. If the clause you refer to is clause 33, on international, cross-border...I said the Government of Canada will not be silent. I gave them the kind of force on the Richter scale, and I didn't think you had to bring in the military. I've delivered.

I basically did in the bill what I said I would do in Charlottetown, and that's what I said toMr. Cliche. I don't know what you may have discussed with him, but I certainly think we can work well together, and this bill in no way jeopardizes the legislation that Quebec has had on the books for endangered species.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Guay.

[English]

Mr. Minister, reinforcing what Paul Steckle said earlier, I would like you to have a look for a moment at this picture that was given to us in Vancouver. It's entitled ``Eagle Nest Tree Protection in British Columbia''. It is a stark illustration that vividly portrays the conflict between residence versus critical habitat, and it says more that 10,000 words.

In Edmonton, some of us were also impressed to hear Dale Gibson, an outstanding and distinguished Canadian who teaches constitutional law at the University of Alberta, say:

Under both its inherent jurisdiction concerning matters of ``national dimension'' and its authority to implement international treaties, the Parliament of Canada has ample constitutional power to legislate with respect to most, if not all, of the responsibilities imposed on Canada by the Rio Convention, and, in particular, the obligations it imposes regarding legislative protection for endangered species. Such protective measures may validly include those which are necessarily incidental to the survival of the species in question, such as laws regulating the habitat on which they depend, and all activities which put them at risk.

This is, of course, from a paper that was discussed and circulated to the committee when we sat in Edmonton.

Also clear in my recollection - and in that of some of our colleagues, I'm sure - was the rather impassioned intervention by a young lawyer on behalf of the Shuswap National Tribal Council, I believe. He made quite an impression and intervention on the need to respect traditional knowledge.

From Stephen Kakfwi, we also heard a request - one to which you referred in your statement this afternoon - not to put wildlife at risk by arbitrarily shifting management and protection responsibility away from the people of the Northwest Territories.

We heard from Geoffrey Scudder, who teaches at the UBC Centre for Biodiversity Research, and who said - and we heard this theme over and over again - that we should leave the listing decisions to the scientists. That theme has been heard on any number of occasions.

David Schindler, who is one of the signatories to the letter referred to earlier by Len Taylor, said:

Without strong provision for habitat protection, endangered species legislation will not work, for 80% of endangered species are endangered because their habitats are being destroyed or disturbed.

.1720

The Federation of British Columbia Naturalists told us:

There can be no future for many species of flora and fauna in Canada if the habitat and natural processes which support them are not protected.

From the Saskatoon Nature Society, we heard: ``Saskatchewan, like the rest of Canada, has suffered a serious decline in its wildlife.''

The Manitoba Naturalists Society said that ``Canadians have waited a long time for this Bill''. And there is another quote from them that will be too long for me to manage in view of the time limitations, but it concerns the ineffectiveness of the Manitoba legislation.

From the Alberta Wilderness Association, we heard:

The Alberta Wilderness Association is pleased that the federal government is finally acting on its commitment made under the Biodiversity Convention of 1992.

And here is the other quotation from the Manitoba Naturalists Society:

Manitoba has received bouquets throughout this process as one of 4 provinces which have ``stand-alone'' endangered species legislation. Although Manitoba's Act has been in place since March, 1990, there have been no prosecutions under this Act. No new resources were allocated to implementation or enforcement. ... If any of you watched a recent Nature of Things program depicting the massive slaughter of pelicans and cormorants on the islands in Lake Winnipegosis in Manitoba, then you will be aware of the lack of enforcement of wildlife protection in Manitoba. Winnipeg Free Press articles about this ongoing slaughter are attached.

The Manitoba Act is a listing process only - there are no compulsory recovery plans.

Then you have.... Well, there is so much that we'd better stop here.

Mr. Minister, perhaps in light of the question that we were asked earlier this afternoon, I would like to ask a question that somehow has to do with a question of process versus partnership. There is a kind of misunderstanding out there in the public mind that needs to not only be clarified, but it requires an intensive process of education and information on your part and that of your officials.

As you know, some witnesses have expressed the fear that the obligations imposed under this bill might cause landowners to destroy habitat that might currently be available to endangered or other species in order to avoid government-imposed restrictions on their use of the land. Others have said the bill should contain a clearer articulation of the principles that individuals should receive as some kind of compensation for incurring economic losses in order to conserve a species for the public good - some dollars, as we were told this morning. In this committee, I think we are beginning to see very clearly the need to make clear to the public what other types of mechanisms, if you like - for lack of a better word - will complete or corroborate this program, in order to secure the cooperation of the landowners and other important participants in the future process that is envisaged.

So in light of what you have already said, could you perhaps indicate again whether or not there are programs that you would like to explore, so as to ensure that there is this kind of complementary program that will allow the implementation of the legislation and that will encourage full, 100% public participation and support, considering the fact that even amongst the farming community the support in rural Canada goes up to 83% or so for this legislation, according to the the Angus Reid poll published last week.

Mr. Marchi: Well, Mr. Chairman, as usual, you've been a tour de force. You've hit many bases, and as you said, your picture certainly speaks more than 10,000 words. If that is the rule, then clearly we're all in trouble, because obviously that picture is not defensible. It doesn't matter whether you're an environmentalist or a minister, you just can't defend it.

.1725

In terms of your question, the answer is yes, I would be prepared to look at ways of ensuring that those mechanisms come together. If we can't address it in the context of the bill per se, what is the message, and what are those mechanisms that we can hopefully work on together and can put in place?

It seems to me that above and beyond the things that I and my ADM have suggested on the whole area of compensation and recovery plan mechanisms, perhaps this council of wildlife ministers should also be engaged so that it can bring the full breadth of federal and provincial efforts in terms of trying to come to grips with a situation that most people would obviously have great sympathy for.

Clearly, I'm fully supportive of trying to check under all those rocks to see what kind of solutions may be brought to bear for the few cases where perhaps a burden will be placed on a family or on a Canadian. I'd be prepared to consider those and would actively seek your advice on that very issue in the days to come.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. On behalf of the committee, we appreciate very much your appearance and that of Dr. Slater.

This committee stands adjourned until Thursday morning.

Return to Committee Home Page