ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 9, 2001

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon. We are resuming our study of Bill C-5, as you know. We have covered quite a distance, but we aren't there yet.

We welcome the groups that are appearing here this afternoon. We look forward to your intervention.

We also welcome the return to the committee on the part of Mr. Herron, whom we've missed for some time.

We welcome a new Liberal member of the committee, Mr. Bigras.

• 1535

We had better start without delay by simply saying that it would be helpful if you could compress your statements a little so that we can have a good round of questions and answers, which usually produces valuable information and which the committee members usually appreciate very much.

Let me also welcome in this room an old friend and colleague, the Honourable Jack Horner. I'm glad to see him back in good form. He is still fondly remembered and highly respected for his very effective role, first in the opposition and then one day, when he saw the light, on the government side, and for the fantastic role he played in advancing the interests of the rural communities, the role of agriculture of course in our economy, and also as a very fine parliamentarian and human being. I'm very glad you were able to come, sir, and we welcome you.

Without any further delay, the first one who has indicated his desire to speak would be on behalf of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Mr. Turner. Could you please keep your comments short? The floor is yours.

Mr. Jim Turner (Co-Chair, CCA Environment and Animal Care Committee, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): Thank you very much, Honourable Chairman Caccia.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, honourable members. We'd certainly like to thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the species at risk legislation.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which is abbreviated to CCA, acts as a national umbrella group for Canadian cattle producers. We represent over 100,000 cattle producers across all areas of Canada. We have considerable land holdings and habitat, and as such we could be affected considerably by this legislation. We could also have considerable impact on the species at risk.

Today we'll be presenting in cooperation with the Manitoba Cattle Producers. Our time is limited, so we would like to jointly make this submission so our time could be a little bit longer.

I'm the chair of the environment committee of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I have been the chair for several years and in fact appeared before you, Mr. Caccia, I believe in 1997, on earlier bills. So we've certainly been involved.

We operate a family ranch just northwest of Calgary in the foothills and also operate a guiding and outfitting operation on the outskirts of Banff National Park.

My co-presenters are Hugh Lynch-Staunton from the cattle commission and also Garth Routledge of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association.

Hugh.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton (Member, Environment Committee, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): Good afternoon.

Our family business is on marginal land on the front range of the Rockies. Our operation is primarily a grazing one on private and public land. We're blessed with abundant wildlife and have had some experience with large predators.

Mr. Garth Routledge (President, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association): Hello. My name is Garth Routledge. I'm the president of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. I'm a member of the CCA executive.

My family operates a cow, calf, and feedlot farm in southwestern Manitoba. This area is primarily a mixed farming area and we've been involved over the years with a number of wildlife initiatives.

Mr. Jim Turner: I understand that the committee has had an opportunity to look at the briefs that both the CCA and the Manitoba Cattle Producers provided to the standing committee last year. Our positions remain relatively the same, except that we have some more fully developed thoughts on compensation.

You should also have received the supporting document “Principles for Fair Compensation under the Proposed Canadian Federal Species at Risk Act”, which was prepared for us by Doctor Glenn Fox from the University of Guelph.

I think the first thing we'd like to do is give a very brief overview of the state of the cattle industry to help members of the committee understand who we are and what we do. Then we'll cover some of the conservation efforts we have, and finally we'll finish with important changes we would like to see made in the species at risk legislation.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton: One of the tough issues that perhaps this endangered species problem emphasizes is the different view of the world between urban and rural people. I hope that in our presentation we can help to close some of that gap. And what I briefly would like to do is to convince you that the cattle industry is fairly large and vibrant and is important enough, not just in our minds, but in your minds and in the minds of the country as well.

• 1540

We have roughly 103,000 cattle producers. Our industry is a cyclical one. Right now we're relatively prosperous, but generally it's been a marginal business and it's been a tough way to make a living.

There are about 168 million acres of agricultural land in Canada, and according to one of our staff members that's slightly bigger than the province of Saskatchewan, and roughly about a third of that is either in pasture or grass, either native or cultivated. So this does have a significant impact on the success of this legislation.

The other thing is because agriculture and the cattle business has traditionally been a low margin, one of the reasons why we were in the business in the first place and put up with all of the things we don't like about it is that we probably have a fairly strong appreciation of the outdoors and natural systems, and that's why we're there.

So we do start from I think a set of values that, if not green, are very sympathetic to green values, and that's our natural disposition or predisposition. But then on the other hand we've always felt we've borne most of the negative costs associated with wildlife, and that makes us apprehensive of rural or government initiatives when we feel threatened.

Garth, go ahead.

Mr. Garth Routledge: Thank you.

Cattle producers have voluntarily participated in conservation programs for many years. We have a history and a heritage of working with the land and I'd like to review a few of those programs for you.

In Manitoba, the Manitoba Cattle Producers have become involved in voluntary cooperative stewardship initiatives working with such organizations as the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, with their green banks program. This program is used to change grazing and management practices within riparian areas.

MCPA is also heavily involved with the mixed grass prairie stewardship project and Manitoba's riparian health initiative. These are broad-based stewardship groups to promote the native prairie and water quality.

The leafy spurge stakeholders group is working to control this invasive weed through an effort of collaboration, research, and innovation. Leafy spurge is spreading rapidly along the river systems, the Trans-Canada Highway, and on the railway lines. It not only threatens agricultural productivity but it also threatens biodiversity.

All across the country cattle producers are involved in riparian management projects. In Alberta, it's through the cows and fish program. In B.C. the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association are sponsoring a stewardship coordinator to assist producers in changing management practices in the green zones along streams. In Ontario there's a manual in the works to help producers choose the best practice for their riparian areas.

CCA, MCPA, and OCA are active participants in the eastern loggerhead shrike recovery strategy. CCA has participated in the burrowing owl recovery team for several years now. We also sit on the prairie habitat joint venture land use committee and we will be active on the relatively new American bird conservation initiative.

It is important to point out that there are several levels of cattle producer conservation activity. Our association participates in programs and planning initiatives with both the federal and provincial governments. Individual producers voluntarily work with provincial and local conservation groups on initiatives that benefit both the species at risk and biodiversity in general.

• 1545

Perhaps the most under-appreciated contribution by cattle producers is the unqualified sharing of our resources on the landscape. Ungulates graze on our grasslands along with our cattle. A variety of birds feed and nest there. Deer and antelope graze on our tame grass and haylands. Waterfowl use our man-made watering sites. Deer bed down for the night in our croplands. Wildlife eat our stored grain and our winter feed supplies of hay. And we share this with the wildlife because it is the right thing to do. We co-exist peacefully and have been doing so for more than a hundred years.

However, we must recognize that this comes at a considerable cost to farm families. For example, wildlife damages cost Ontario farmers over $41 million in 1998, according to a study done by the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. If this is extrapolated across the country, it becomes very evident that the agricultural producers are providing habitat for public wildlife with significant time and expense.

Mr. Jim Turner: I think now we come to the main point of our presence here today, the changes we feel are needed to make this legislation effective and positive and to enhance it for the endangered species, but also for cattle producers.

Cattle producers have actively participated in the consultations over the past six years or so leading up to the tabling of this bill. The potential impact of this legislation is causing considerable anxiety in the rural community, and in certain areas it's causing downright fear as to how this legislation will affect them. It's very difficult to make good business decisions in an environment of uncertainty. Agriculture is also going through difficult times. Hard decisions are being forced on people, and this legislation should not place an extra burden on agricultural producers.

This is a very complex bill and there are many areas where we have suggested changes. There are also areas where we have complimented Minister Anderson, areas such as the recognition that stewardship activities are important to the conservation of species and that they should be supported, and also the removal of the civil action section.

On the stewardship side, we're very pleased to see the provisions for conservation agreements for both species at risk and other species and the funding agreements for cost-sharing programs. This appears to be a mechanism to use public dollars to assist producers to make management changes that may be necessary for the protection of species.

We believe there must also be adequate financial support to prevent species from becoming at risk. These resources need to be available outside the species at risk effort. That financial support is necessary not only at the level of government administration, but also at the grass roots level for local conservation groups, landowners, and leaseholders, because changing management practices and attitudes require resources and a considerable national effort.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton: When we get into the process of listing species at risk, it's definite that science must have a very significant role. It's also important for us that the scientific community is objective in this regard. But we think there has to be accountability in weighing the various factors, not just the scientific ones. So it's very important that there's a political decision at the end of this process, simply because the politicians are accountable. If we get into examples, we've seen scientists with equally impressive credentials contradict each other. Scientists seem to be as capable of being involved in causes as the rest of us. This may sound strange, but we think we need the moderate influence of the politicians at the end of the day.

When we get into general prohibitions, another area of concern, we've had legal opinions that indicate the onus is on the landowner or land operator to prove due diligence. The only way we can do this effectively is through an environmental assessment program, which is so expensive that most of our people just can't do it. It doesn't matter whether we want to or whether we're forced to, it just can't be done. So we need that to be turned around.

• 1550

My suggestion is to add “knowingly” or “with intent” to this prohibition. That change would give our producers a lot more comfort, and I think it would serve the interests of all of us if that were added.

Mr. Garth Routledge: On recovery strategies, subclause 39(1), to reassure landowners and landholders that their participation is indeed valuable and recognized, we would like to suggest removing the phrase “to the extent possible” here. Although we support the need for the minister to maintain flexibility in his approach, we also believe that he has been very clear in his intent to have landholders and landowners involved in the recovery planning. The language of the legislation should reflect that we must be part of the recovery team.

Mr. Jim Turner: I think one of the key concerns we have is compensation. In subclause 64(1) it states that the minister, in accordance with regulations, may pay compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of extraordinary impact from the application of sections 58, 60, or 61 or an emergency order. We certainly commend the government on their decision to recognize the principle of compensation and to include it in the enabling language of Bill C-5. However, compensation is critical to the success of the efforts to protect species at risk on the land upon which these species depend. Because of the importance of compensation to cattle producers, we are asking that “may” be changed to “must”. We also strongly suggest the removal of the word “extraordinary”. We recommend that all losses on normally expected uses and the loss in market value as a result of the implementation of this act must be eligible for compensation.

We also contend that if the stewardship program and incentives are properly supported, there will be little call for compensation, as it will not be necessary. I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the restrictions SARA may impose on ranchers and farmers will prevent any agriculture or other economic use of that land. If this does occur, landowners will lose virtually all the rights associated with the property holders' interests, and their land could be rendered almost worthless. It is too strong a burden for producers and landowners to bear. Forty-five cents on the dollar, as suggested by Mr. Pearse, would break most producers, so we need full and fair compensation if our land must be used to protect endangered species.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton: The issue of public land is a complicated one. Again, what we want you to believe is how important public land is to our industry. It has quite an impact on our operations, and in many cases it's beyond the actual part of that public land, because of the integral part of the operations. Even though a lot of public land is in a block, in the north, or otherwise wastelands, a lot of it's patchwork. We have pieces of public land interspersed with private land. It's a toughie. In our own case, we have a half section of lease right in the geographical centre of our ranch. The value of that lease is above the value of the land to our business operation.

The other thing, of course, is the jurisdictional problem between the federal and provincial governments, and we recognize that has to be sorted out. What we're asking in respect of compensation for our rights is this. Even though we have lesser rights with public land than we do with private land, we still have the legal contracts of the lease, and these have to be respected. If those contracts are broken, we'd like you to recognize that it does impose a hardship on us.

The Chair: It would be helpful now if you could summarize, because there are other groups that wish to have the floor.

• 1555

Mr. Jim Turner: We do have some concerns on the offences and punishment. We feel some of the fines are excessive. We would certainly like to see those fines closely matched to the degree of the offence that is there. As I say, most family farms are incorporated, and I think there's quite a difference between fining Daishowa a significant amount and fining a family farm. We're also concerned with the due diligence portion, clause 100 in the act.

To summarize the main points of our presentation, I think we need the following changes made to the legislation. We need 100% compensation for losses on normal expected uses and for the loss in market value. This is crucial for landowners to cooperate, and we need to know that we can still provide for our families on the land. The second main point is that we need to add “knowingly and with intent” to the prohibition against killing, harming, and harassing or capturing, or taking individuals listed on the lists. Our third point is that we need to have species notification process prior to the potential charges. The fourth point would be to decrease the amount of fines to match the severity of the offence.

In conclusion, we certainly appreciate this opportunity to present to your committee on behalf of the 100,000 cattle producers throughout Canada. It is certainly important that the act is written to effectively protect endangered species, but it also should be written so it does not threaten legitimate industries such as cattle production. Cattle producers will certainly work to help species, but we need help in doing that. Rural families cannot be expected to take on this burden alone. If saving endangered species is for the public good, then the public must bear some of the costs, as rural families cannot do it alone.

We do have a lot of the habitat, and in many areas we have over a hundred years stewardship on that land. With the changes we have outlined today and submitted in our briefs included in Bill C-5, I think you could get the buy-in and cooperation of rural landowners and landholders, and you could have a law that truly enhances endangered species protection. We need to ensure through these amendments to the legislation that having endangered species and their habitat on your land is an asset and not a liability.

We thank you for this opportunity and certainly look forward to your questions later on. Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Turner, Mr. Lynch-Staunton, and Mr. Routledge, for your presentation.

Next on the list is Mr. Friesen. Would you like to give us a neatly compressed presentation, please?

Mr. Bob Friesen (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for this invitation. I would also like to express my appreciation for the presentation done by CCA, which I believe reflects the sensitivity of this issue and the tremendous implications this legislation can have for the agricultural industry across Canada.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents upwards of 200,000 farmers across Canada. That, of course, represents a tremendous geographical diversity, as well as diversity in agricultural products.

I would say, in going through this presentation briefly, clearly the issue of incentives is very important. That any recommendations made need to be science-based is very important. The issue of compensation is extremely important. I dare say farmers are the group of people, the group of private citizens, who may be the most affected by this legislation, because of the very nature of how farming works, owning large areas of land with which they do what they do best, producing very high-quality, safe food for Canada consumers, as well as around the world.

We are very concerned. While we are supportive, we are also concerned about some of the components in this legislation. I believe there is a desire to replace what you could call a quilt created by the different endangered species legislation provincially. We need to replace that quilt with a seamless blanket.

I can tell you that farmers want to be part of the solution. They want to be part of the solution in a way that matches their commitment to produce abundant, safe, and nutritious food. Of course, this means that methods to encourage participation and partnerships, such as incentives, tax treatments, compensation, are necessary to make sure that farmers feel engaged on this issue without it's being a threat to their livelihood. As was already mentioned, they have clearly demonstrated their willingness and their commitment to be proactive and to take voluntary actions in protecting and restoring habitat and protecting endangered species.

• 1600

However, farmers are also aware that there is a need for very good information about the threats agriculture may pose to endangered species and the actions they can take to protect species. They are willing to be involved, to be engaged, especially if the process is transparent and the whole process is science-based.

We believe that the endangered species legislation must support cost-effective, action-oriented programs that address priorities and problems; ensure that being part of the solution is implemented; provide for awareness of opportunities and actions to undertake; promote partnerships; provide for and promote tools to protect species while not affecting livelihoods; develop positive attitudes towards biodiversity protection.

We believe species at risk legislation must include recognition and support for incentive programs and provisions for partnerships, and there must be an alternative to citizen suits. We are happy to see how this part of the legislation has been changed since its early beginning. We also believe it's important that fines are reasonable, with protection for landowners from arbitrary levying of fines without proper consultation, and of course that there also be an opportunity for the landowner to answer to the charge.

We believe a holistic approach, rather than a single-species focus, should be adopted. There must be support for a preventive system. We are all familiar with the fact that prevention is much more cost-effective than repairing the problem later on. It is also very important that decisions made under the act must be based on good science. There must be access to adequate funding so this legislation and the regulations around it can be properly enforced and done so with the highest level of cooperation and partnerships.

There must be acknowledgement that activities and sustainable use of the landscape are in fact compatible with species diversity. There must be an exemption from prohibitions for activities protecting human, animal, and plant health. In other words, the protection of endangered species should not come—and should not have to come—at the expense of human health, animal health, and plant health.

There must be emergency procedures that cannot be used as a way to get around the regular process of the listing and recovery plan development; provisions for compensation from the government; and of course specific reference to agreements with private landowners and landholders.

In general, there are many positive aspects to this legislation, but we have some specific concerns. In the preamble it states that “cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of scientific certainty...”. Of course farmers are strong proponents of good fiscal management; we feel that references to cost-effectiveness must remain. However, the term “scientific certainty” can be vague and open to wide interpretation. We seek assurances that this “lack of scientific certainty” will be based on criteria acceptable to the scientific community and the broader community. If a “lack of scientific certainty” is declared, we believe any evidence used in the decision-making must be science-based as well.

With regard to the process for listing species at risk as described in clauses 27 to 31, CFA supports the listing process as described in the legislation. CFA believes that there must be a scientific basis to the listing of any species, but that the government must take responsibility for the implications of doing so. The recommendations must be science-based—they should come out of the scientific and environmental communities. However, the final decision must be made by those who are best accountable for the socio-economic implications of the decisions made.

Then in clauses 37 to 46, on recovery strategies, and as well clauses 47 to 56, on action plans, we support the recovery processes identified and as amplified in the backgrounder “A Recovery Process for Species at Risk”. This four-step process, whereby a species is listed, landowners are contacted, recovery strategies are created, and action plans are put in place, is a sensible approach that carries forward the principles behind the stewardship initiatives. We believe it creates a significant opportunity for success if adequate involvement from the landowners who will be affected by the plans is ensured.

• 1605

Very quickly on the enforcement measures, Mr. Chair, before I close, in clauses 93 to 96, CFA supports the exclusion of civil suits from the legislation. Nevertheless, there must be criteria set for triggering an investigation or assessment so governmental resources are not needlessly consumed through frivolous claims.

Under Bill C-5 the minister responsible may appoint enforcement officers. Theses officers will have considerable powers. We read the legislation to mean that an enforcement officer may at any “reasonable” time enter and inspect any place to which the provisions in the act apply. In this clause CFA feels the term “reasonable” must be defined and clarified. For example, will it only apply once an investigation has been triggered? Again, will it leave us vulnerable to frivolous triggering?

An issue already mentioned by CCA—perhaps the uppermost in our minds—is compensation. Clearly, 50% compensation, or a 10% sleeve and then 50% of the 90% compensation, is totally inadequate. Farmers feel responsible; they feel accountable. They want to be part of the solution. They want to be engaged. They want a partnership, and they want to try a preventive action.

However, when it comes to compensation, I believe the success of effective endangered species legislation is contingent on farmers not feeling threatened by it. Farmers will feel—because they are doing this for the public good and through partnerships—that their willing and committed engagement requires 100% compensation. This is legislation that speaks to the protection of endangered species for the public good, and farmers, while they want to be active in carrying out the legislation, clearly must be compensated.

The legislation must include the principle of full compensation. The guidelines must take different land types and land uses into account. There need to be very clear rules on what will be covered and what will not be covered in a compensation payment. Compensation must be considered for lost present income for existing use; inputs for the current year; any loss of equity and lost future income, if land is taken permanently out of production; and change in use of property. There must be clear guidelines around land swaps. There are precedents for compensation for expropriation in provincial legislation and in federal law; these precedents should be considered.

Of course mediation, incentive, and partnership options are always the first choice. But if all those fail, farmers will be committed to this if there is 100% compensation. Again let me stress the socio-economic implications of this legislation if it doesn't work. We believe it's worth looking at in such a way that farmers will feel part of this partnership, that they, together with the Canadian public, are protecting our biodiversity and endangered species.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Friesen.

Mr. Horner, the floor is yours.

Mr. Jack Horner (Chairman, Alberta Grazing Lease Holder Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to present a brief to your committee. I'm chairman of the Alberta Grazing Lease Holder Association. Tim Andrew is treasurer.

A rancher is one who loves animals. He knows the different personalities of his horses and his cattle. He loves to see wild animals on his land. He appreciates them every time he sees them. The ranching business is the one that maintains the habitat for the endangered species. The cities destroy it; the rancher maintains it. It's to his livelihood to maintain it.

Having said this, I now introduce Tim Andrew, and he'll begin to read our brief.

Mr. Tim Andrew (Treasurer, Alberta Grazing Lease Holder Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1610

The Alberta Grazing Lease Holders Association is an organization representing over 1,200 Alberta ranchers who hold long-term grazing lease contracts with Province of Alberta. Grazing lands make up 10 million acres of the province, or about 6% of Alberta's arable lands. Historically, the grazing lease was the first tool of settlement in the west. Before Alberta was a province, the Dominion government realized the vast treasures of the prairies. The decline of the buffalo, the march west of the Northwest Mounted Police, and the signing of Treaty 7 gave the Fathers of Confederation a huge empire to populate and steward, or risk losing to ever-aggressive American interests.

In examining the errors that occurred when the American west was settled, the government of the day realized the tragedy of the commons, where everyone's stock had full range on the public land, resulting in widespread overgrazing. There was real harm done to the American grass resource. Macdonald opted for a more managed settlement. By granting to suitable applicants long-term contracts that held a monetary value, the needs of both parties were served. The Dominion government began the settlement of the west, populating it with caretakers, who had to manage the grass resource in order to keep their livestock in good stead. In return for this assured access to a pristine grazing resource, the contract held a monetary value and the rancher was obliged to guard the environmental integrity of the public's domain.

The next wave of settlement, of course, brought the homesteaders, who were able to commandeer most of the arable lands away from the ranching interest, but at the same time, those long-term contracts played an integral role in the stability of the fledgling agricultural industry. Many farmers saw that a balance could be maintained in their economic unit by coupling a livestock and grain operation, so the endeavour could prosper. Many homesteaders chose to surrender the poorer land back to the crown because of the land's inconsistent nature—it was too rocky, too prone to drought or flood, too hilly, too desolate or infertile. This land has now come into the ranchers' domain and it's not suitable to be actively farmed, but through the long-term secure nature of the provincial contract, it gave our pioneers an option to balance their operation by both ranching and farming.

The same principles Macdonald used are the foundation of today's lease contract. In return for access to the grazing land, the rancher pays all the taxes, a yearly grazing fee, as well as a purchase price to acquire the land from another current leaseholder. Because all the available crown lands have been contracted out, an entrepreneurial rancher who wishes to expand his operation must actively acquire or purchase that lease contract from another leaseholder. As with any other real estate asset, the condition of the property, the quality of the range management practice, plus improvements made to the ground, including fencing and water developments, all go towards enhancing the final contract price. Because leased land is so valuable to the economic unit of the ranch, financial institutions will assist by granting mortgages on that contract, but usually require some deeded land as security.

Ranchers cherish among themselves not only the vastness of their pastures, but the quality of the forage that's on it and the condition of that range. They all know their livelihood depends on how well their stock can harvest that grass. Leaseholders also recognize the vast ecological treasures that abound on their ranches. They have the privilege of sharing the abundance of nature with deer, moose, elk, and antelope that freely roam their properties. They recognize that they hold some of the last native grasslands in trust for their families and all Canadians. They also recognize that their pastures are shared with some of the most sensitive flora and fauna left on the planet, and that they need to take an active part in securing all of nature's bounty.

With that I'll hand over to our esteemed colleague, Mr. Horner.

Mr. Jack Horner: We realize that the species at risk legislation came about at the request of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We do support the concept of safeguarding our species at risk and protecting Canada's share of the world's flora and fauna. However, we feel the costs should be shared by all citizens, not just property owners.

The Canadian legislation emphasizes cooperation and voluntary measures to protect critical habitat, with incentives to ensure a certain fairness through the provisions for compensation. There is a great importance placed on the words “fairness” and “compensation”. We believe compensation should not only be for the cost associated with the normal use of the land, but should also consider the loss in property value.

• 1615

We feel that compensation should include lease land as well. How can it be fair if it does not cover lease land? If a rancher loses his lease land, it affects the total value of his operational unit.

Dr. Pearse was to consider the question of compensation. He makes great use of the expressions “the carrot” and “the stick”. The carrot consists of the farmer or rancher having to cover the first 10%, and 50% of the remaining costs as well. Note also that there is no coverage on lease land, according to Dr. Pearse. It is the grazing of lease land that maintains the diversity of our flora and fauna. Of course, this is where most of our critical habitat or endangered species exist today. Some carrot. Dr. Pearse can't seriously expect much cooperation. We know that federal initiatives will be met with complimentary legislation in the provincial and territorial legislatures. If the federal government says no compensation on lease land, that sets a pattern for the provinces to follow. It looks like we must consider that the lessee is a good species to do away with.

Dr. Pearse, in his report, dealt with the question of incentives for compensation, but he came to the conclusion that there should be no compensation paid on lease land or crown land. On page 18, though, he acknowledges that the government may purchase these leases or the rights at market price, so obviously he puts a price on them. Should a leaseholder be entitled to incentive payments? I'm not sure, according to Dr. Pearse. Dr. Pearse states that an incentive payment is made to someone who accepts or is part of a willing undertaking to cooperate in a stewardship effort to protect or enhance an endangered species.

Compensation in contract is a payment made to someone who has suffered a loss when the government restricts the way he manages his land, especially when those restrictions are unilaterally imposed by the government. Dr. Pearse states that the compensation is intended to play a minor role, and we agree. It would come into play as a very limited consideration, but the whole act is based on fairness and equal sharing of responsibility and cost. Dr. Pearse suggests that if the policy worked well, these cases of compensation would be rare. We agree with that. The better it works, the rarer they will be. All this may be true, but how can he expect this consideration to occur when he is prepared to disregard the leaseholder, where most of the endangered species will come into play?

Dr. Pearse suggests the need for extreme care in developing compensation arrangements, because such regulatory intrusion on property land is not usually compensated. Where he got that idea from, I don't know. The arrangement for compensation in this case implies a significant shift in policy. This is not the case in Alberta. If one intrudes on lease land for any purpose, the lessee is compensated, and if a dispute arises, the lessee takes his case to the service rights board in Alberta, and they bring about a formal and binding result.

Further, Dr. Pearse suggests we in Canada do not want to make the same mistakes as the United States in the endangered species legislation. I'm afraid we may be headed the same way, and ranchers may adopt the policy of shoot, shovel, and shut up. The act states that the minister may pay compensation to any person suffering a loss. Dr. Pearse suggests the formula of 50%, after the property owner absorbs the first 10%. How, I say again, is that fair? Why should one pay the first 10% of the cost and then 50%, and all the people in Canada pay the remaining 50%? Whose definition of fairness is this? A person should be compensated 100%. It is well established that the property we operate on as leaseholders is the last expansive pristine grassland. The species at risk exist there because of the ranchers' careful stewardship. To deny them compensation under this act is an insult and will drive the leaseholders away from any cooperation.

• 1620

Let's have a brief look at the stick. The penalties proposed are an outrage when compared to those for other ills of society, such as arson, rape, or murder. The policy change that these environmental crimes represent, with the strict liability for offences and the reverse onus when compared to other criminal law, is unacceptable. We are common businessmen who do physical work, who daily steward our land and our stock, and who will be faced daily with the threat of penalties of a $50,000 fine and a year in jail. A fine of up to $1 million and five years in jail create in no way an atmosphere to bring about willing cooperation.

What this will do, Mr. Chairman, is drive the ranchers to work to rule, and everybody who has dealt with organized labour or any dupe knows that work-to-rule really doesn't help. Who will it hurt? It'll hurt the endangered species, that's who it'll hurt. It won't hurt the ranchers. It may hurt a few government officials, but it will hurt the endangered species most. I urge this committee with this bill to carefully consider Dr. Pearse's report. He didn't deal very fully with the question of compensation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Horner.

Mr. Pope.

Mr. David Pope (Vice-President, Western Stock Growers' Association): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our lead-off speaker will be Mr. Norman Ward, past president of the Western Stock Growers' Association.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Norman Ward (Past President, Western Stock Growers' Association): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other committee members.

I will be reading from our brief, which has been widely circulated since last fall. We appeared before this committee approximately five years ago, and three bills later we are presenting again. I will just go over the highlights of our brief, and I look forward to questions later on this afternoon.

We are a voluntary organization representing a membership that owns and manages some 500,000 head of cattle and about three million acres of habitat, both private and public land—500,000 head of cattle, that's right. We're involved in the entire range of beef production, and we are governed by a motto in our organization, “The Voice of Free Market Environmentalism Since 1896”. We believe that the free market provides an instrument where resources are conserved, enhanced, and economically employed for all of society.

However, property rights do not deny the government the power to infringe upon these rights if it is seen to be for the public good. The right of eminent domain gives government the right to expropriate for the common good. Along with that right comes the responsibility for compensation of its citizens. The guiding principle must be that if it is the public that is to benefit, then it is the public who should pay for the benefit. This principle, the right to own property, holds true even on this issue before us, and I will expand on those property issues when I get into the compensation issue.

Western Stock Growers' Association recognizes the somewhat softening of the language in Bill C-5 when it is compared to previous bills, and we recognize ideals such as partnership and cooperation that are in the new act. We are, however, very concerned about the lack of fair compensation for property and/or income expropriated or altered because of undertakings on behalf of recovery plans, and we are extremely distraught about the draconian measures used to regulate and enforce the act. These two issues, how they are addressed within the act, and how they will play out in future years will ultimately determine how species at risk will survive in our habitat. What we want to do is have species at risk an asset to our habitat and our ranches, not a liability.

We believe that any legislation that truly seeks to protect endangered species must encourage conservation programs that are based on an approach of cooperation and partnership. You heard from Land and Resource Partnership about a month ago. Western Stock Growers' is the founder of LRP. We put forward the concept of cooperation, partnership, and compensation where it's required, and we hold true to those three principles. As you see, Land and Resource Partnership now includes some 95% of the resource users in Alberta, people who pursue those three goals.

• 1625

Much of our membership has land that provides habitat for species at risk. Because of that, Western Stock Growers' members feel very threatened by this piece of legislation. We hold the last remaining habitat for many species at risk in Alberta.

We want to offer some solutions to Bill C-5 and the compensation issue. The solution we would like to bring forward—and Mr. Horner mentioned it in their brief as well—is the use of an Alberta Surface Rights Act type of arbitration. The Alberta government has developed an expropriation process under the Alberta Surface Rights Act where a private entity is able to temporarily expropriate rights from another private entity. They do this for mineral extraction in Alberta where there is a surface right and a mineral right.

We believe the same concept can be used here in compensation for endangered species. That process would involve the area that's granted, the general disturbance, the loss of use of that land, the adverse effects of an endangered species recovery plan, the incidental damages, and the injurious affection that happens with the property around that.

The imposition of a recovery plan must take into account the true cost of the plan to the property owner, and the process must be seen to be transparent. A straight-up business arrangement that recognizes the true cost of habitat and species protection will produce long-term, sustained management. Only when the true cost of the program is defined will human creativity then produce the cooperative approach necessary and deserved.

There are literally thousands of ways to enhance the biodiversity of the Canadian environment. Each ecosystem must be looked at individually, and a customized management approach must be tailored for each area.

Alberta has approximately 33,000 farmers and ranchers, each voluntarily managing their own complex ecosystem. It's much better to have those 33,000 farmers and ranchers all pulling in the same direction to save endangered species than it is to have a superficial layer of legislation across the country forcing people into it.

We want to be part of the solution, and we think we know how to do that. We are good stewards of the land, and stewardship is defined by us to include the people goals that belong to the program, the land and environment goals that belong to the program, and the money goals that finance the people goals and the land goals. We see that within Bill C-5 the money goals are not part of the solution, so we don't have a whole; the holistic approach is not there within Bill C-5.

We would like to improve on that. We have many instances where we can offer stewardship abilities. We would like to see very much-improved compensation as part of that.

In summary of the first half of our presentation, then, the Western Stock Growers' Association believes that compensation is not about dollars; it's about principle. First, it is about fairness. All society should pay for the preservation of its values, such as biodiversity.

Second, it is about accountability. Those who propose a course of action must take responsibility for the cost of that program and not simply assume that a very costly alternative will be accepted at someone else's expense.

Third and foremost, compensation is a governor. It places a control on the range of options available under recovery plans. It is our expectation that most suitable solutions to managing habitat will not be expensive ones. Instead, the best solution will be one that is founded in good science and takes into account the needs of the various stakeholders. It will not be developed by people with blinders on who aim to satisfy only one societal value. The best solutions will prove that the human use of the land is also compatible with preservation of the habitat.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to Mr. Pope.

Mr. David Pope: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to deal with some of the concerns the Western Stock Growers' have with the severe penalties and with civil liberties and rights that are being infringed on, we believe, in this bill.

• 1630

The offences and penalties for actions against plants, animals, and organisms and the land that makes up their habitat are unlike any found in Canadian criminal law. Penalties range from $50,000 and/or one year in jail to $1 million and/or five years in jail for each offence—doubled if offences are repeated.

These are strict liability offences. We believe that deeming inadvertent actions that include the normal kinds of activities in a farming and ranching enterprise—building a corral, or clearing brush for a fence, or simply building a house, or grazing cattle—we think these kinds of “offences” are simply unreasonable and unacceptable. We don't believe the Government of Canada should be creating a new class of criminal to include farmers and ranchers and the kinds of people around this table here today.

These penalties are simply much too severe when compared to other severe criminal penalties found within our Criminal Code. They may well be a violation of some of our charter rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens.

We also believe Bill C-5 is an extreme intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Historically, property and natural resources were given over to the provinces under the old British North America Act. We believe the province should have exclusive jurisdiction over the preservation of species at risk. Their habitat has been more than adequately preserved over the years through excellent programs such as the one Ducks Unlimited has used for the burrowing owl in the eastern part of the province, and other programs like Operation Burrowing Owl in the eastern part of the province and Operation Swift Fox. There are many good voluntary programs we think have been quite adequate in providing the kind of biodiversity we are all interested in preserving in Canada.

Also, we have very serious concerns about some of the civil rights that appear to be in jeopardy under Bill C-5—specifically, the search and seizure provisions into a dwelling-place, which bear no resemblance to the usual criminal law search and seizure. We believe these actions would be much easier to accomplish if an enforcer asked for a search and seizure warrant into a dwelling-place.

There are also provisions that seriously erode the common-law right to remain silent when asked about a certain offence. The clause states that “all reasonable assistance” be given to the interrogator. In the usual criminal law situation—a murder, arson, rape accusation—you do no have to give any evidence against yourself whatsoever. This is very much at risk in this particular piece of legislation—by statute, which would overrule the common law.

We're also quite concerned about the strict liability, as I previously mentioned. A reverse onus is in effect here, so that rather than being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—which is the usual means within the criminal law, its test... Certainly we have a similar approach in quasi-criminal situations, like parking tickets and jaywalking, but not when the penalties are as onerous as those we'll be facing for each incurrence—say riding a horse or a tractor over a burrowing owl habitat or a nest—which can result in us looking at those tremendous fines and jail time.

In summary, we believe Bill C-5 is a very command-and-control, top-down, American-style piece of legislation. This has not worked for the folks in the United States for the last 28 years. I've talked to many of them and the lawyers who have defended them, and the kind of heartache they've had down there we should not repeat up here. Hopefully we can find a Canadian way through cooperation and partnership. And where land has to be taken out of production for protection of the habitat of species at risk, it would be done with fair market value compensation and we can make it work.

• 1635

Now Norman Ward has more comments.

The Chair: I would ask you now to please wind down, because we have to move to the next... Would you be very brief, please.

Mr. Norman Ward: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A very brief summary: Western Stock Growers' Association sent 25,000 letters out to our cattle producers within Alberta. We had some 600 people respond, saying they are very concerned. I would like to leave this with the committee if I may. These are people who feel very strongly that they are looking after endangered species; they want to be a part of the process, and they are very concerned.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. And we'll certainly take due note of the papers you are delivering. Thank you, Mr. Pope.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Menzies and Ms. Treslan. Who would like to speak?

Mr. Ted Menzies (President, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association): I will start, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Could you give a compressed presentation so members a chance to ask questions?

Mr. Ted Menzies: It will be brief. Trust me, it will be brief.

You do have our presentation, I would assume, and if anyone doesn't have it, we have some copies here.

Our apologies for being a little late. We had another meeting with one of the ministers.

By way of introduction, my name is Ted Menzies. I am a grain farmer from southern Alberta. I mean no disrespect when I say that I'd far sooner be home seeding than here, but this is a very important issue and I feel very strongly about farmers, grain farmers, cereal, oilseed farmers having some representation at this table.

I would also like to introduce Denise Treslan, our executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. Denise and her husband farm at Beechy, Saskatchewan.

We represent in the neighbourhood of 6,000 farmers across the prairies who have expressed concerns about parts of this legislation. Parts of it they find encouraging, but they wished us to bring their concerns to you at this time. Because you have copies of our presentation, I will not read the entire paper, only highlight some points.

We would like to commend the minister and his department for their willingness thus far to include in the process everyone who will be affected by legislation. That said, there is more that can be done. Cooperation between the levels of government and the landowners is key to the success of this legislation.

Landholders and leaseholders are acutely aware of what species inhabit their land and have a strong desire to protect them. As a matter of interest, I shut down a 400-horsepower tractor and a 60-foot air drill only two days ago to move the next of a short-eared owl. Farmers are concerned. Short-eared owls are not an endangered species, but I moved it anyway, and farmers do this on a regular basis—duck nests, whatever. We are stewards of the land we inhabit.

The wheat growers and other groups appearing before you today are in agreement that we need representation on COSEWIC. Our voice must also be heard. The wheat growers and farmers in general have been rapid adapters of new technology. We have adopted practices like reduced tillage, which has many benefits, such as less runoff and better habitats for the species, and the use of site-specific herbicides and fertilization, which reduces possible soil and water contamination. These practices have also led to an overall reduction in dependence on pesticides. We have encouraged the development and use of biological control methods for weeds and insect pests and the establishment of shelter belts for habitats, as well as erosion control.

The current proposed compensation is totally inadequate; it should be nothing less than 100%. If farmers are to be part of this solution, you cannot expect them to shoulder all of the financial burdens themselves.

We are encouraged by the provision in clause 62 allowing for the purchase of land for protection of endangered species and their habitat. This is the approach taken by the Nature Conservancy and virtually guarantees protection.

As for jurisdictions, most provinces have legislation in place already. Are we reinventing the wheel? As far as we can see, the only need for bringing this under federal jurisdiction is to include the application of criminal law.

• 1640

Instituting fines of the amounts mentioned is far too onerous for unintentional damage or destruction. I would use the analogy of a car accident. If you are driving down the road and are involved in a car accident where someone is killed, are you by virtue of driving your car down that road then liable for this person's death? Should you be fined? Should you go to jail simply because you were driving down the road? There's not a great deal of difference between what this proposed legislation is suggesting and my analogy.

Thank you for allowing us to appear before you today. I welcome any questions. We will leave you extra time for your questions.

The Chair: Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Menzies.

Before we start with a member of the official opposition, let me recognize the presence in this room of Dr. Hill, the distinguished parliamentarian from Alberta and the deputy leader of the Alliance.

Mr. Mills, you are first. Five minutes, please.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank everyone who's here. You are exactly the same people I hear from at townhall meetings in my constituency and in adjoining constituencies in western Canada and in rural Ontario. Your message is exactly the message needing to be brought here, and it needs to be understood by everyone involved in this issue.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, regarding compensation, we are in full agreement with you that it must be there, it must be fair market value. A really good indicator is surface rights and the way that issue has been handled in Alberta for some 30 years.

How do you feel about it being in the regulations, but not the legislation? I know the answer I want you to give, but I don't know what you're going to say, so I'm asking you this question.

Secondly, I'd like to hear a few more views. The battle cry and the lightning rod that I hear is the Pearse report. Hopefully by now the government has heard and understands that message: it's not acceptable. And certainly the minister has indicated it's not acceptable. I hear U.S. legislation—I've heard that over and over, a thousand times over...

I was at a trade show last week in Rocky Mountain House. I was there seven hours and had people lined up to tell me about the Pearse report, among other things. Many of them mentioned U.S. legislation. How many of you think this is what the average guy out finishing seeding is saying? How you do you feel about this? Is it true that “shoot, shovel, and shut up” might well be what happens if we don't get that compensation? We need cooperation, consultation, and compensation.

I don't know who wants to answer, but all of you could take a whack at it.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton: Maybe I'll start on it.

In respect to compensation covered in the legislation versus the regulation, the problem is we've heard this story before, even from benign governments like Alberta, where we've been told not to worry about an issue. Then the regulation comes out and it's certainly not what we thought we were going to get. By the time the regulation comes out, it's very difficult for us to deal with it. It doesn't matter, as long as the effect is the way we want it, but we'd certainly feel more comfortable if it's spelled out in the legislation.

I must say that I find the question of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” as offensive as anyone in the town. Most of our producers feel the same way. It saddens me that perhaps there's a little more truth to it than we'd like to see. Wouldn't it be a sad process if our industry and some of the fine people in it felt that's what they had to do to stay on the land?

• 1645

Mr. Jack Horner: I might just say a word with regard to Mr. Mills' question, Mr. Chairman. Certainly it would be far better if provisions for a concept like the service rights board of Alberta were in the legislation. It doesn't have to be called the service rights board, but there should be provision for an arbitration board in the legislation, particularly when you're levelling such severe fines for a rancher or a farmer unknowingly damaging the habitat of an endangered species.

The Chair: Would you like to answer, Mr. Ward?

Mr. Norman Ward: Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. This is an extremely sore spot with many people out there on the land. Many people never listen to issues; they're not part of the issue until money comes out of their pocket, for whatever reason. In this case, when you explain to people what may happen, they see that the money comes out of their pocket and they are extremely interested and extremely concerned about this issue. They would like to see this issue dealt with within the act. They would feel much better.

I would suggest that if they feel better with the process of having that in the act, we can then promote cooperation and partnership. We can promote the stewardship that's necessary out there so that then we can reduce the amount of compensation that may be necessary on the back end. It's always better to do the stewardship up front. And we're going to have to have that stewardship up front. The only way to do it is not to threaten people with the compensation issue.

Consciously or unconsciously, ranchers and farmers are actively involved in the management of that ecosystem. They can manipulate the ecosystem very easily one way or the other, consciously or unconsciously. If they feel threatened or backed into a corner, they can actively manage that situation where they're not out killing animals, they're not out removing habitat, but the habitat does change slightly. You wake up one morning and the burrowing owl isn't there any more. Did you kill it? Did you remove the habitat? No, but the habitat has changed. We want to have people on side.

The Chair: Mr. Turner, a brief answer, please.

Mr. Jim Turner: Just briefly, the concept of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” really bothers me. I think you're more apt to have a lack of cooperation that would have a lot more dramatic effect in the long term than the shooting and shovelling. I think the changing of the habitat... and potentially just not cooperating, not telling the biologist where it is, could have a detrimental effect. That's my fear with some of this. I think the cooperation could certainly go a long way in preventing any of that.

The Chair: Mr. Friesen, very briefly, please.

Mr. Bob Friesen: Very quickly, of course the triple-S method is very offensive, but quite frankly farmers cannot afford to take a 10% hit, let alone a 45% or 55% hit.

There is an example, a precedent set, which is a little different, yet similar. The CFIA's regulations require livestock producers to report reportable diseases. A few years ago they realized at the same time that compensation was inadequate and in fact increased the compensation for livestock with reportable diseases to a level that adequately compensated the farmer at commercial value. They did that in large part because they wanted farmers to be honest and up front in reporting reportable diseases and not have to be afraid that they would have to take the full hit.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bigras, followed by Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Five minutes.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. Friesen, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Upon reading your brief, of course, one thing is clear, and that is that you are very critical of the Pearse method which you do not believe is very fair to farmers. Incidentally, you even indicate in your comments that you wish the bill, which will inevitably or most probably be enacted, included the principle of full compensation levels. I think your message on this issue was well heard. My question concerns mostly the settlement of disputes.

On the next to last page of your brief, you remain at the principle level. You say: "The mediation option is the preferable dispute settlement process." You merely state the principle whereas other groups, including Mr. Menzies' and Ms. Treslan's group, indicate instead that they would much prefer an arbitration process where the State and landowners cannot agree, not only on the recovery plan level, but also on the compensation level.

• 1650

So here is my question: beyond the principle stated, are you in favour of a dispute settlement mechanism and, if so, what form should it take? Should it emphasize mediation or arbitration?

[English]

Mr. Bob Friesen: First of all, our number one preference is that farmers comply with the legislation through incentives and with the commitment they have for biodiversity.

Secondly, if that is impossible and there has to be a delay of harvest, if they have to give up property, if they have to give up equity, then of course there needs to be compensation. Of course, rather than fines or rather than a lot of acrimony, we would prefer this to be a partnership, and we would prefer facilitation and mediation, so that the best interests of this potential legislation are fulfilled. So facilitation, mediation, and, in the end, arbitration, which might be the only resort. If, in that case, the arbitration results in the farmer having to give up any sort of equity, there must be 100% compensation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that all? Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to start my comments by saying that we recognize that food doesn't come from a supermarket; it originates somewhere else, with farmers. Moreover, we also know, from a rural Canada perspective, there's a big disconnect in rural Canada with the federal government in terms of how far removed they often feel. I understand where the apprehension might actually come from with this initiative.

There are a couple of aspects I'd like to touch on. First, I am very sympathetic to one aspect that you brought up with respect to provincial jurisdiction. Our position all along has been that if there is a provincial law in place, and it's at least equivalent, done harmoniously with the 1996 accord that already exists, then the federal law need not apply. This legislation has the power to tell the province that it must engage or it will come in; it has the power to tell a private landowner that they have to engage or it will come in. But it's not mandatory on federal lands. I find that aspect to be somewhat hypocritical.

The Conservatives, the Canadian Alliance, and the NDP all believe in scientific listing, that COSEWIC should actually set that list. It would be science based, based on sound science. We believe fundamentally that those individuals who have the most at stake, the stakeholders, the people affected from a cost perspective, have to be the lead. They have to have the input in any kind of recovery plan. This is where I'd actually like to go, because if they're not, then the system won't work. We believe in a graduated approach, embracing stewardship, and looking at alternatives before we have to get to compensation.

The Chair: Would you like to pose a question?

Mr. John Herron: I have five minutes; I've been away for a while.

The Chair: You have to leave time for the reply, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On the compensation aspect of it, if that's not there at the end of the day, we know the system won't work, because Canadians in a large part of our country will actually be quite fearful.

My suggestion is, given that there's not clarity with respect to the compensatory regime that's going to be offered to this—and the Pearse report clearly doesn't go there enough... I don't mind having special treatment for farmers, because they usually seem to get the short end of the stick. If the compensatory regime is not clear, would you recommend to us that we don't support it? I address my question to Mr. Menzies, I guess—to see if you were paying attention.

Mr. Ted Menzies: Thank you, John.

Mr. John Herron: I would understand if you weren't.

Mr. Ted Menzies: Yes, I was paying attention.

• 1655

I would agree that the stakeholders do need to be part of this whole process. We stated that in both our oral and written presentations. I think compensation has been raised by every group here, and every group here has said that the compensation suggested is not adequate.

My suggestion, I guess, would be no, do not support this bill in its existing form without improvements or an amendment to the compensation part.

Mr. John Herron: I doubt I have time for a second question.

The Chair: You do.

Mr. John Herron: I do? Thank you.

I know the scientific listing aspect is somewhat controversial among some of your members. We believe in the scientific list, because as soon as you get politicians in there, they may or may not go in a direction... but clearly the landowners... There's enough consensus amongst most of the political parties that the scientific listing is now the right route in which to go. The political consideration must come on the recovery plan, perhaps in those rare circumstances where you may not actually act.

Do you believe the political considerations, the socio-economic implications, can be addressed in the recovery plan component but shouldn't be a debate between whether it's at risk or not, as that really should be a matter of more science? But I do hear you on this socio-economic aspect.

Mr. Pope, you and I have been talking about this for a while.

Mr. David Pope: Yes, thank you.

I've been involved with the Alberta provincial Endangered Species Act, added five clauses a few years ago to the Wildlife Act, and have read the Globe and Mail over the years and so forth. I've found that scientists are no more immune from their agendas and their biases than anyone else. What we've asked for over the years is stakeholder involvement in COSEWIC, and failing that, a blind peer review. In other scientific endeavours, before something is proven and made into policy, whether it be inventing the Salk vaccine or whatever it might be, there's always blind peer review or stakeholder involvement.

That said, if that were the case—and that has not been agreed to by the federal government, of course, so we're not there—we believe any decision as to what happens as a result of the listing, and the criteria from the scientists, must be left to the politicians. In our practical world, we can get to a politician eventually, if we get on an airplane and fly far enough, but we will not be able to get to an appointed PhD in academia. It just would be impossible.

So the answer to your question is yes, we believe politicians should address the two big questions of economics and social impact on the folks, like us, who have their hands in the dirt. That's perhaps a convoluted answer, but it's where we're coming from.

The Chair: This portion of time is over. I apologize for that.

Mr. Comartin, followed by the chair.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Horner, you made a comment—in fact, you said it twice—that most of the endangered species are on leased land. That's the first time I've heard that. Just to get back to “scientific basis”, is there some scientific basis for that statement?

Mr. Jack Horner: I don't know of any scientific study that would prove that, no, but you have to consider the practical application of it. A huge amount of leased land is undisturbed. It's against the law, it's against your lease contract, to disturb it. It's the undisturbed land that the endangered species have made their home. Certainly the endangered species at one time lived in Calgary—bears, wild animals, cats, and the whole bit—but the city forced them out.

The same might apply to my farmers. You cultivated the land, you destroyed a lot of the habitat, so where then does the habitat resort to? It resorts to the uncultivated land. The 10 million acres I spoke of in Alberta is leased. It's undisturbed. That's where the endangered species have found their home. The burrowing owl or whatever else you would want to name is there.

• 1700

So that's the basis for that statement. It's a logical thing to accept. The cities destroy the habitat, the farmer leaves a headland but he farms the land, and the rancher—the rancher—maintains the habitat. And we want to cooperate with the legislation.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I must admit, following logically, I went just the other way. I agree with you; I come out of southwestern Ontario, and I certainly know the impact of development on native species. As bad as it can get, we've got it. So my sense was that it would have gone the other way, that the endangered species would be more likely to be on graze land, and obviously much more likely in the immediate environ of a major city or even a smaller community, but a developed community.

I guess I'm arguing with you at this point, and I don't want to do that.

Mr. Turner, you made a comment on something we may want to consider as a committee. You used the term “species notification process”, and I don't know what you meant by that. I have the sense that this goes back to the whole question of intent versus due diligence in the legislation.

Do I understand correctly that what you're getting at there is that if the farmer is told that he or she has in fact a species at risk on their land, the enforcement mechanism should kick in only at that point?

Mr. Jim Turner: Yes, that's it exactly. I guess our concern is that in our daily operations, some people are aware of endangered species, but we also have plants, and many people aren't aware of what is on an endangered species list. For prohibitions and fines and whatever to kick in place, I think it's important that the guy at least first has the knowledge that it's there. I think it would be important to have notification of that before any of these do come into place.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay.

We keep hearing about the shoot, shovel, and shut up syndrome. I've mentioned to a number of environmental groups who have come here that we keep hearing—Mr. Mills and I have some disagreement over this—anecdotal stories from people about this happening. I ask everybody this question: Is anybody aware of someone who has studied this, and do we have any scientific basis for judging what kind of impact it has?

Mr. David Pope: A 1994 publication put out by Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, called The Endangered Species Act: Time For Change, in the United States, by Thomas Lambert and Robert J. Smith, gives you some pretty well-documented stories on that issue. They certainly curled my hair. I could provide you with a copy.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If you would, please.

Mr. David Pope: With names, addresses, and telephone numbers...

Mr. Joe Comartin: If you can give me the study after the meeting's over, I will follow it up. Thank you.

Mr. David Pope: Certainly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Madam Redman, followed by the chair.

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

I appreciate all of you coming to give us your testimony.

The minister has said very often that the Pearse report was a good starting point, and that compensation is somewhat precedent-setting. He has all along had the view that it was a good platform on which to have a discussion.

I was interested, Mr. Turner, that one of the things you talked about was suggesting that the extraordinary part of the trigger for compensation... which Pearse recommends taking out. And yet one of the balances—we've all talked about the voluntary nature and the fact that species at risk right now exist because people like you are protecting them in their habitat—is that it not become a disincentive. Several people here have talked about 100% compensation. You suggested not having an extraordinary impact on your land. We're not talking about expropriating land, we're talking about changing or limiting the use of land.

I'm wondering if you could speak to that. How do we reconcile the things you're suggesting and not making compensation a disincentive to the voluntary actions that clearly are what this bill is predicated on?

Mr. Jim Turner: The definition of extraordinary would be key to how this operates. I guess I would make an analogy in terms of my operations. If I grazed 160 acres of land, say, and got a certain economic value from that, and just had to delay my grazing, or harvest my hay at a different date, perhaps I would have some loss of quality but I could absorb some of that. If I could not graze it at all, however, I would have a total loss.

• 1705

I think there's some level at which we have to have compensation. If it costs our operation and we lose income, we need full compensation for that. If you go to a voluntary arrangement, I would call that an incentive program. But if it reaches the point where not having the use of that particular chunk of land means our operation is not viable, I think we should be fully compensated for that. What it boils down to is making a living.

Mr. Tim Andrew: If I could add to that, I don't know if the committee or the general public realizes just how closely we interact with these species. I've had loggerhead shrikes on my doorstep, and the burrowing owls' habitat is within a mile of my doorstep.

We don't have a huge operation. We just have a little mom-and-pop deal. How can we afford to back the environmental movement of the country? That's how it's being played within our community. We are expected to take care of these critters, yet the ground these owls are on is leased land. I'm not eligible for any compensation according to Pearse. Pearse has put me completely out of the picture. With regard to incentives because they're on leased land, I don't know if I'm eligible for those either. The only way this bill is going to work is with cooperation. If you're going to come at us with those two ideas, how can we ever be expected to cooperate?

Mrs. Karen Redman: When he was here, I asked Dr. Pearse how he came up with the trigger of 10% and the compensation of 50%. He felt that those two issues had to be dealt with as a unit, that you couldn't decouple them and just look at a trigger point and not at what might be adequate compensation.

I would just underscore that it has always been the minister's view that this is a starting point.

Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton: I disagree with Dr. Pearse in that I don't think most of us would act that way. We're looking at compensation as a backstop. I think that if there were a way for us to cooperate and make things better, that would be our predisposition. There will probably be people who don't see it that way, but, in my view, the compensation issue gives the industry the comfort to do the things they would like to do.

Mr. Jim Turner: I might also add that 10% is a threshold. Some farming operations may not even have a 10% return. Their threshold may be 2%, 3%, or 4%. That's our biggest concern. To have a mandatory 10% absorbed could break a lot of farmers or ranchers.

Mr. Bob Friesen: I believe farmers have shown that they are committed to preserving biodiversity. The compensation issue is a backstop, a last resort. Clearly, farmers cannot afford to absorb any of the cost. It would be a far greater disincentive to the success of this legislation if they don't feel there is very strong support from the Canadian public for them to be compensated adequately if in fact they have to make sacrifices on behalf of the entire country.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Redman.

Mr. Friesen, perhaps you can answer the following question. There are four provinces with a substantive agricultural sector where mandatory habitat protection for endangered species exists in the provincial legislation, as you know. This legislation has been in place for sometime. In the provincial legislation there is no provision for compensation. Can you tell us whether the farmers have had hardships imposed on them by the provincial legislation, particularly in light of Mr. Lynch-Staunton's statement that it's the farmers who bear the cost of wildlife protection? Evidently, the farmers have been able to function with the provincial legislation in place—or is there something in the provincial legislation that you would like to highlight?

• 1710

Mr. Bob Friesen: I can't answer that, Mr. Chair. I'm not familiar with the provincial legislation. All I can tell you is anecdotal from the province of Manitoba, where we have the wildlife habitat program, such as Ducks Unlimited, who have worked with farmers. It has been a partnership situation. But I can't answer to the mandatory aspect of that provincial legislation.

The Chair: The mandatory habitat protection provision has been in place in four provinces.

Mr. Ward.

Mr. Norman Ward: If I may, Alberta's legislation has been in place for approximately three years under the Wildlife Act. They are now going through the process of listing plants, and they listed some animals over the last two years.

The issue of compensation is continually raised before the provincial committee at meeting after meeting after meeting.

The recovery plan process for several endangered species is just starting this spring. One will be the sage grouse in southeastern Alberta.

The issue of compensation has not been dealt with, and I can assure you that meetings are going on. In fact, there's a meeting on Monday of next week where industry will address the issue with the sustainable development minister. So it hasn't been settled there. It has just been kind of simmering, and I hope it will be settled in the coming year.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Friesen, on page 4 of your brief I find a statement that is very reassuring and certainly very central to our whole discussion this afternoon. In paragraph 3 you indicate:

This four-step process—whereby a species is listed, landowners are contacted, recovery strategies are created, and action plans are put in place—is a sensible approach that carries forward the principles behind the stewardship initiatives.

I find that to be very well phrased and encouraging.

In his report Dr. Pearse indicated that compensation should be provided only to those who are unwilling or unable to participate in stewardship initiatives. Could you give us a clarification as to how you see this process working? It would seem, from what Dr. Pearse has said, that a compensatory system would only be invoked in cases where a landowner did not want to participate in a stewardship process.

Mr. Bob Friesen: I think part of the responsibility for farmers is to try to partnership in this initiative.

The line from our brief that you just read says “landowners are contacted, recovery strategies are created”, but it goes on to say “We believe it creates a significant opportunity for success—if adequate involvement from the landowners who will be affected by the plans is ensured”.

If compensation is paid on the basis of willingness or unwillingness, that's not where we're coming from. Our position on compensation is that this initiative should work on incentives and partnerships and on trying an approach that has a high level of success. If all the other options don't work and if in fact it results in a cost to the landowner, then compensation should be paid. Clearly, the other strategies that are named in that document are the preferred route to take.

The Chair: As we understand Dr. Pearse's report, it is along those lines, that the stewardship process, if initiated and participated in, is the way to go and that the compensation would be invoked only in cases where there is an unwillingness or an inability on the part of the landowner to participate.

• 1715

Mr. Bob Friesen: Then it has to be 100%. I would agree with Mr. Menzies' answer that if farmers have to take the majority or the largest share of the cost for the public good, then we would not support the legislation. However, I think you can see by our presentation that if it's structured right, and if we can take an approach that gives us a high potential for success, and you add the appropriate amount of compensation, we believe this can work.

The Chair: So long as you understand clearly where Dr. Pearse is coming from. This is why I asked this question.

Mr. Bob Friesen: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm not here to respond to Dr. Pearse. I'm saying that the parts of the legislation we support are in this document. We believe it can happen. We believe farmers are good stewards of the land and the environment.

The Chair: This is the same broad point that you make on page four of your brief.

Mr. Bob Friesen: We should attempt the strategies that are listed there, but let's not forget that support is contingent on its being backed up by 100% compensation.

The Chair: “For those who are unwilling or cannot cooperate”, this is where the distinction comes in. Obviously, those who are participating in the stewardship program are going to be involved in the stewardship program, and an agreement will be arrived at.

Mr. Bob Friesen: With due respect, Mr. Chair, the farmer may be involved in a good stewardship program, and the fact may be that he's parking his combine to do that. If that results in his losing quality in his crop and he has a loss of value, then compensation must kick in.

The Chair: Parking all the combines will probably be taken into account.

Mr. Horner.

Mr. Jack Horner: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to comment on Dr. Pearse, referring to your question and Madam Redman's. In my reading of Dr. Pearse's report, he suggested the 10% because he didn't want farmers or ranchers to overwork the compensation aspect and, in essence, live on the compensation. That's the wrong attitude to take completely.

You see, the purpose of the bill is to protect the endangered species.

The Chair: And also, Mr. Horner, to elicit stewardship and to elicit any number of positive actions.

Mr. Jack Horner: Yes, but the purpose is to protect the endangered species. If you feel you need the cooperation of the ranchers and the farmers to protect the endangered species, then the degree of cooperation will be directly related to the compensation—whether you like that or I like that or who likes it, that's a fact of life. We know this. We know this is a fact. This is human nature, the degree of cooperation. If there's an argument about the cooperation, whether Jack Horner is living on compensation, then it should be settled by a neutral board.

The Chair: You could show me a thousand cases, Mr. Horner, where cooperation cannot be bought. There is a lot of cooperation for which no money can be paid, and you are the first one to demonstrate it.

Mr. Jack Horner: In the province of Alberta 7,000 wells have been drilled on leased land, and the arbitration board settles the disputes with regard to the damage they do. The arbitration board is appointed by the Government of Alberta, and the rancher accepts their decision as binding. I don't see why you couldn't have a neutral board appointed here, and the rancher or the farmer would have to accept whatever they say. If they say it's 10% damages, if they say it's 90% damages, he's compensated, and an endangered species is protected there. That's the object of the game, to protect the endangered species, not to make sure the rancher keeps a living. He's not going to live off endangered species.

The Chair: And to avoid confrontation and to elicit cooperation, that's the intent.

Mr. Jack Horner: That's right. That's the degree. That's the degree.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Benoit, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This issue is important to farmers and ranchers. I obviously don't have to tell you that. You're all here, many of you are taken from your farming operations or ranching operations to be here today, and I thank you for your presentations today and for the good work you've done in the past. Many of you were involved in killing two very bad pieces of legislation in the past, and I'm hoping that you'll have enough impact to cause this one to be modified, so it will work.

It's also shown by a town hall meeting that was put on in St. Paul, Alberta, about two weeks ago. Seventy people were there by invitation, and ninety ended up coming. It was put on by Stan Harder, I think with the agricultural society, and there were leaders from farm groups, municipalities, fish and game associations, and cattlemen. It was a great discussion. It wasn't an out-of-control discussion. It was an excellent discussion.

• 1720

Two of the main things they came up with, things needed in legislation, were that there had to be a cooperative approach, including partnerships and including incentives, and that—so many said—you can't and won't have a cooperative approach if there isn't fair market value compensation. The one is necessary to have the other.

I have two questions about that. First, if you don't include these things in the legislation, do you think this legislation will in fact protect species at risk, which is the stated intent? Or, as some of these people suggested, could it actually have a negative impact?

The second question is directed to Mr. Menzies and to the stock growers, either one of you gentlemen, and it is a question asked by a lot of the people there. Is this federal legislation really needed? Is it going to help save species? And is it needed with what's in place in the provinces?

The reason I'm asking the two of you is that, Mr. Menzies, you made a statement something to the effect that the only reason for bringing this under federal legislation is that you can bring the application of the Criminal Code into place. And the stock growers, in their brief, have a statement that their motto is “The Voice of Free Market Environmentalism since 1896”. And then you go on to say your group believes that “the free market provides the instrument where resources are conserved, enhanced and economically enjoyed, for all society, over the long term.”

So my question to both of you: is there any need for this legislation, federally, based on the way you look at things?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Who would like to answer? Mr. Menzies, please.

Mr. Ted Menzies: Mr. Chairman, the question was posed to me.

Certainly we believe that it almost is redundant to be looking at this legislation federally, when in fact it is in place—I realize that it's not in place in all the provinces—in enough of the provinces that there are precedents showing it can be done. We heard from Mr. Ward that it is being done, and being done successfully, albeit not without glitches, but they are being ironed out. So why have the provinces relinquish it to the federal jurisdiction when it can be accomplished in a provincial environment?

The Chair: Mr. Pope.

Mr. David Pope: I am on that particular endangered species committee in Alberta. We have been working for three years. It's a very well balanced stakeholder group, with all the major reasonable players at the table. We've had very candid discussions, but we are listening and putting together budgets to do something in the province of Alberta.

But to answer your question, there was a study done by the Fraser Institute in 1999 in the Critical Issues Bulletin called “Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species”, by Ms. Laura Jones. As to whether or not we really need this kind of legislation federally, in our opinion, we don't. In fact, one of the big indicators in the United States is that when the folks in Montana and Wyoming, under their federal endangered species legislation, need such species as they've deemed endangered, the wolf and the grizzly bear, they come to Alberta and British Columbia to get them.

So it's just overkill, I think. We're coming through with some good programs in Alberta, and I don't think it's necessary.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, followed by Madam Redman.

Mr. John Herron: I was very interested in the leaseholders issue for agricultural lands. Is there any specific language you have for even a potential amendment that would address that particular issue?

Mr. Bob Friesen: I don't have it here. Can I get back to you on that?

Mr. John Herron: If you have it, I think it might be quite interested.

• 1725

The Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act have been in place for a myriad of years now, and definitely a number of prohibitions come into play. Can you site examples of where, because of these two federal statutes that make prohibitions on land, which have been in place for quite some time, there have been frivolous lawsuits, and extraordinary or even ordinary harship to farmers in that regard?

Mr. Jim Turner: The only comment I might make on the compensation side of this is that with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and whatever, you have also found in some areas you have an abundance of ducks and an abundance of geese and they can go in and terminate a crop. A lot of time there is compensation paid for the losses of that crop caused by the waterfowl.

Mr. Tim Andrew: If we are going to talk about the Migratory Birds Convention Act and how it affects it, and how it compares to the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, it's how the two processes haven't gelled. Everyone knows about Ducks Unlimited and the funding that happens through the Migratory Birds Convention Act that goes to Ducks Unlimited to develop their programs and how it benefits the farmer. Presently, I'm quite a benefactor of the Ducks Unlimited program. I have a huge watering project on my lease that I can take advantage of in this drought that's in southern Alberta.

People don't see the Migratory Birds Convention Act. They see the Ducks Unlimited project as being a benefit to our community. Right now, we see the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act as being a liability or being something that is going to threaten the agricultural industry because of the loss of land and the huge fines. We're not seeing the incentive programs that we need to see up front that are going to benefit our communities or make us part of the solution. We're seeing the fines and we're seeing the obviously poor actions of the American legislation. Those have been brought well out into the agricultural community for the Canadian farmer and the Canadian rancher. We don't see any of the incentives coming forward. That's what is concerning us severely.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Pope.

Mr. David Pope: Mr. Herron, to respond to your question concerning the Migratory Birds Convention Act, I think the distinction we have to be aware of there is that it is concerned with the corpus, the bird itself. In the Endangered Species Protection Act we're concerned with the habitat, the land the bird may land on, and that I think is the distinction.

Concerning wording for the leaseholder compensation, this is just a concept, but the stock growers' position for leaseholders is that if the federal government, through their safety net, with the power they would have under this proposed legislation, came in and changed the leasing contract, the contract between the cattle lessee and the Province of Alberta, whatever damages might fall out as a result of those changes would be sought under our common by the lessee, the cattle grazer—as well as, on the other side, the lessor, being the Province of Alberta, which Dr. Pearse doesn't seem to think should be compensated at all for the loss of those royalties. He doesn't beleive that would be the kind of compensation our province should receive.

Mr. John Herron: A very short, final scenario—

The Chair: It's at the expense of Madam Redman, because the bells will be ringing very soon.

Mr. John Herron: It will be very short, Karen.

With respect to this bill, I am sympathetic to the opinion that the American model won't work. Mr. Andrew touched on the issue that we really need to show what the incentives are that are actually in place. That's why we believe in a graduated approach. To even give the minister credit here in that regard, they actually spent some language on stewardship initiatives before we have to get to the compensatory regime.

Don't you folks see this as being slightly different from the American model in that regard? Isn't it a little bit more made in Canada?

Mr. Norman Ward: Certainly we're getting towards the made-in-Canada issue, or act. I sat here in front of this committee almost five years ago. The “c” word wasn't there at the time. And we actually have the “c” word in the new bill. We just have to define what the “c” word actually means. Once we achieve that, though, then I think the cooperation, the stewardship, the partnership will happen.

• 1730

If you don't put it in, it comes down to this. If we're really going to save endangered species, if that is the goal, we have to have all the people onside on the habitat. If we don't have the habitat users onside, this thing is going to fail.

I'm an environmentalist. I want to see the habitat and the endangered species work here. We have to have the “c” word there and it has to have some meaning to it.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you. I will demonstrate brevity for the sake of Mr. Herron.

Mr. Turner, I'm going to go back to you because of a concern that was voiced by many people. Basically, you were talking about the backstop in the bill, which is really the fines and the punishment regime, which only come into place if somebody knowingly and willingly destroys habitat or does something to endangered species.

These are maximum penalties that would be decided by courts. These are not automatic fines or jail sentences. It sounds to me as if everybody's assuming this would automatically go in place. This is a fairly standard practice where the courts would decide how much destruction was made and whether it was made on purpose. So I'm wondering why everybody's taking such exception to that, when clearly intent will have to be shown.

Mr. Jim Turner: The biggest concern is the incorporated, the high fines on corporations. Most family farms are incorporated. The fear among the farm producers out there is that they would face these maximum fines. It's very much a disincentive. Perhaps it's overbearing and too much, but it is certainly the fear that's out there.

That's my concern with this bill, that we have to address all these fears. I think to get the cooperation of landowners and get them onside you need the compensation as a backstop. I don't think it will have to be used. I think there have to be assurances that you won't be fined to that extreme extent to get the rural families and the landowners onside. I think that's the biggest thing.

It's maybe an education thing as much as anything. But these are certainly the fears that are out there. They're very real fears.

The Chair: Ms. Treslan.

Ms. Denise Treslan (Executive Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association): I think part of the question comes too in the fact we discussed, and as Ted mentioned in our presentation, that it's the question of who's going to decide whether or not this habitat was accidentally or inadvertently or purposely destroyed or harmed or changed in some way.

That's where we're asking that stakeholders and farm groups be allowed to be part of the COSEWIC process, so that there's broad representation, there's broad regional representation, and also of farm groups.

Another fear of the farm community is that someone, perhaps scientists... We all have, as Mr. Pope said, our own agendas, our own ideas of what we want to protect. I don't want someone coming onto my land and telling me that I can't combine on a certain day, that I can't seed on a certain day, that I can't spray on a certain day, that I can't do these things because of some perceived harm they have, which is an arbitrary thing.

So who's going to decide for me whether or not I'm a good steward of the land? Is someone going to come and tell me I'm not, when I believe in my heart and in my best of intentions that I am following the best farming practices I can?

The Chair: Mr. Pope, sixty seconds.

Mr. David Pope: To answer your question, the way it's structured now, that answer will only be found in a court of law after expensive litigation that few of us can really afford.

The Chair: That is your assumption, Mr. Pope.

Mr. David Pope: Yes.

The Chair: You're entitled to it, but you may be totally wrong as well.

I wouldn't want to allow Ms. Treslan to go home with that kind of answer in her heart and mind, and to trouble the enjoyment of her land at all.

We have to vote in a few minutes, so we have to break up now.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank you for having brought here to the committee table your fears, your concerns, your advice, and also your practical experiences, which are certainly varied and very valuable.

As to why we need the legislation, I would say in regard to what the Fraser Institute says that we all know its political inclination, and I don't think we should take it too seriously. We do, however, take seriously the fact that the number of endangered species is on the rise and therefore there is something that needs to be done. How it is to be done, of course, is the big question, and this is why we are wrestling for the third time with this type of legislation.

• 1735

Certainly, again, I find the paragraph on page 4 in Mr. Friesen's submission very heartening. I think it is the one that we will endorse and support as to the recovery strategies and how it is going to be done in the full spirit of cooperation.

It is legitimate to bring the fears up. The fears will have to be allayed. We'll have to ensure that the legislation takes into account the practicality of the world out there. In that sense, your presence here today has been very valuable and what you have said will be taken into full account together with what other witnesses have said. Sometimes there is a convergence of opinion, sometimes there isn't. That is the art of politics, and we'll try to work out, where possible, a convergence at least.

Mr. Horner, you have the last word.

Mr. Jack Horner: I would like to give Mrs. Redman an example of cooperation.

We want to cooperate. A few years ago I had a piece of land next to a body of water. I wanted to cut the hay. Ducks Unlimited came along and said, “Mr. Horner, could you stay off that land till the ducks' eggs are hatched?” I said “How long is that going to be?” They said “Two weeks. Be happy. We'll compensate you for those damages.”

I cooperated fully and I was compensated adequately. That just gives you an example of cooperation and compensation working hand in hand. The ducks are not an endangered species, although there was a fear they may become that.

That's what we want to see happen under this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've enjoyed—

The Chair: Mr. Horner, this would not be the last time you had the last word and I'm glad you had it.

Mr. Jack Horner: Thank you.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.