[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
.1617 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. Today we are discussing wildlife and habitat.
[English]
The panel today is a mix of government people, academics and NGOs. We have invited them to give the committee an overview of how they assess the present situation as it affects trends in wildlife.
From the Department of the Environment we have Robert Slater, the Assistant Deputy Minister; from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada we have Chris Shank; from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund we have Stewart Elgie; and from the University of Guelph's Department of Zoology we have Professor Vernon Thomas.
We welcome you. We regret and apologize for the delay caused by a vote. We will be rudely interrupted at around 5:30 by another vote, so we have some time constraints to overcome. Therefore I invite you to make your presentations as short as you can, keeping in mind that we have only until 5:30 for questions, which is usually the part that engages the members of the committee most and where there is an exchange.
I would hope that you can perhaps adopt a rule of seven to ten minutes per presentation today. I'm sorry to have to say that. If you cannot, we will forgive you. If you can, we will appreciate it.
With that thought in mind, because every minute counts now, we will ask Mr. Slater to open this round of panel one on the prevention of species and habitats from becoming endangered.
.1620
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Slater (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Conservation Service, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am very pleased to be with you today to discuss a very important issue, that of endangered species.
First of all, allow me to introduce my colleagues from Environment Canada: Ms Linda Maltby who deals exclusively with endangered species, Dr. Anthony Keith, the Director of the National Wildlife Centre, Mr. Steve Wendt, who addressed your committee yesterday, and other experts from Environment Canada who will answer questions you may be asking.
[English]
It was some two years ago that this committee, in a previous session, published a report on global partnerships, a review of the Rio de Janeiro commitments, and concluded that if the Biodiversity Convention were to be met by Canada, then Canada would have to consider developing a national framework for the protection of endangered species, including consideration of federal legislation.
You, Mr. Chairman, have acted to produce a private member's bill, and many non-government organizations, some of which are represented here today, have made similar proposals. On November 17 last the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of the Environment, announced her decision to seek that national framework for the protection of endangered species, including possible federal legislation.
What I'd like to do in the next five or six minutes is make a compressed presentation that indicates our current state of thinking and our progress on that work, in particular how it will engage the committee later on.
[Slide Presentation]
Mr. Slater: I'd like to go straight to the slide that is described as ``The National Framework''.
Appearing before you is the approach we would like to take to the development of a national framework. Clearly a national framework for the protection of endangered species has to do a couple of things.
Firstly, to be effective, a framework has to be able to identify those species that are at risk and the various levels of risk. Such a process has to be effective on both a national and a local scale.
The process for identifying species at risk is simply the first but an essential step in the exercise. It has to trigger action. So the first process - the listing exercise, if you will, or the determination of species at risk - is a safety net that would allow us to identify the things that need attention.
The course of action that follows from the identification process is the springboard that would take those endangered species back into the environment so they can be there on a naturally sustainable basis.
It is that process of identifying and listing on a nationally consistent basis, plus the development of action plans in response to that listing, that constitutes our proposal for a national framework for the protection of Canada's endangered species.
.1625
That approach has been developed in this small blue booklet, which is part of the materials I believe have been made available to you. It is the basis for the public discussions we will be starting next week, which will take place in many cities across the country and will last for the entire month of May.
What I'd like to do is hone in on a couple of aspects of this framework and then leave it for you to ask questions for amplification.
I'd like to emphasize that the listing process has to be nationally consistent, scientifically based and at arm's length from jurisdictions. It has to represent the best total knowledge of our experts in the field in this country. Such an approach has to be able to identify species of national significance all the way through to local significance. The actions required have to be consistent, whether they're on a national or a local scale.
Once a species is identified as being at risk, whether it's national or local, it has to trigger a response action. That action has to engage all of the communities that have the capacity to take preventative or curative measures.
Those jurisdictions are governments - federal, provincial, regional and municipal. They're aboriginal peoples, private landowners, industrial landowners and non-governmental organizations. All of those parties have to be constructively engaged in the development of recovery plans. The essential elements of those are listed in the response plans dealing with habitat and other aspects in that chart.
In order to deliver on this, it is our judgment that legislation by the federal government needs to be looked at. There are some four existing pieces of federal legislation that address endangered species in various ways, but there is no single comprehensive piece aimed specifically at that target. Equally, only a limited number of the provinces have that capacity at the present time.
We have something of a patchwork quilt of legal authorities, which has the potential to allow endangered species to fall through it and move from being threatened to being extinct. We want to seal that safety net, and we'd like to do it by way of legislation.
The final slide indicates the areas where we think federal legislation could be operative. As I mentioned, this is the topic we are discussing broadly in public meetings with Canadians over the next month.
The scope is going to address the full range of Canadian species, and the federal legislation could provide the federal contribution to the national approach. It would apply to species under federal authority, in other words, species that move across international borders and species covered under fisheries and marine mammals.
.1630
We think the process of listing - the process of deciding what species are threatened and the extent to which they are threatened - should be vested in legislation and codified. We believe COSEWIC, the existing committee on endangered species, provides a basis for such an approach.
Under that listing process, we would expect the minister to establish the terms of reference regarding appointments and criteria to be used in assessing species. That approach would be used by both the federal government and other jurisdictions - provincial, aboriginal peoples, etc.
We believe possible federal legislation could look at protection features and has to address the question of hunting, the disturbance of endangered species at risk and also the critical habitat of species at risk. We also believe that within 24 months of an official listing, recovery plans should be made publicly available.
The final point on the broad scope of federal legislation is we believe it should make reference to the international obligations Canada has entered into in the context of endangered species and with respect to biodiversity.
That represents a very brief description of the national framework, the particular federal contribution that could be made to that national framework and the federal legislation that could contribute towards its success.
I think I stayed within your time limits, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Slater.
Perhaps I missed something in your presentation, namely the deadlines you have in mind. If you have not done so, could you indicate to this committee what timetable you have in mind? It may not be a minor detail.
Mr. Slater: The public meetings are scheduled to conclude by May 31. There is an advisory group monitoring these hearings, which is to report to us as soon as possible after May 31. The minister has us working on a very tight timetable. She wants to seek formal authority for the drafting of legislation in June. Under those circumstances, we would be in a position to go for first reading in the winter session of the House.
The Chairman: Which year?
Mr. Slater: This year.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Slater.
Mr. Shank, would you now like to take the floor on behalf of your committee, namely the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada? Please go ahead.
Mr. Chris Shank (Chair, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which goes by the acronym COSEWIC, is the body that provides the official list of Canadian species at risk.
The fact is anybody can unilaterally declare a species endangered on the basis of few data or no data at all. Endangered species are sexy. By declaring a species endangered, one can increase one's sale of books, enhance fund-raising drives and provide publicity for causes.
It was in response to the need for a single, scientifically based list of Canadian species at risk that the fortieth federal-provincial wildlife conference gave COSEWIC its mandate in 1976. This mandate is to determine the status, at the national level, of wild Canadian species, subspecies and populations. The mandate is restricted to fish, amphibians, reptiles, plants, mammals and birds.
.1635
The mandate is very clear that there are no legal consequences that flow from a COSEWIC listing. Jurisdictions are not required to take any action following COSEWIC designation, and conversely COSEWIC does not require jurisdictional permission to make a listing. Status designations by COSEWIC are solely on the basis of scientific knowledge and are to be completely independent and free from non-scientific considerations and political pressures.
The membership of COSEWIC is comprised of one member from each of the provinces and territories and one from each of four federal agencies: the Canadian Wildlife Service, National Parks, the National Museums of Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There are also representatives from three national non-governmental organizations: the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Nature Federation and World Wildlife Fund Canada. Membership is completed by chairpersons from seven subcommittees dealing with publicity, fish and marine mammals, birds, terrestrial mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and, since 1994, two specific groups of invertebrates.
Because of the overlapping roles, COSEWIC membership varies from 19 to 28 persons. COSEWIC currently reports to the Canadian Wildlife directors. COSEWIC is also assisted by a secretariat housed within the Canadian Wildlife Service, which handles all the day-to-day work of the committee.
COSEWIC meets once per year, usually in early April. Throughout the course of the year leading up to the meeting, the subcommittee chairs work at commissioning and supervising the preparation of status reports, which form the basis on which COSEWIC makes the status designations.
These status reports are written by experts in the field and contain the latest information on the status of the species in question. They tend to be between 20 and 200 pages in length and require anywhere from a few months to several years to prepare. For this the authors are given the princely sum of usually between $2,000 and $2,500. These status reports are very much a labour of love and duty.
The money to prepare the status reports is provided by non-governmental organizations, previously the World Wildlife Fund and currently the Canadian Wildlife Federation, as well as by several federal departments and sometimes by range jurisdictions. COSEWIC generally treats between 20 and 25 status reports every year, which cost about $40,000 to $50,000 annually to prepare.
Before the status reports ever make it to the full committee, they undergo a rigorous peer review by technical experts on the subcommittees. When the report is considered adequate for referral to COSEWIC, it is first sent out to the range jurisdictions six months in advance to ensure that any local considerations are included in the status report.
The process has taken on additional significance within the last few years with the settlement of land claims, particularly in the Northwest Territories, which legally require inclusion of claims-based wildlife co-management groups in the designations of endangered species.
At the annual meeting itself, most of the time is actually devoted to discussing and debating the level of status to designate the species for which status reports have been submitted to the committee. There are five categories of risk in which species are designated. These are: extinct, meaning the species no longer exists; extirpated, meaning the species no longer exists in the wild in Canada but occurs elsewhere; endangered, meaning the species faces imminent extirpation or extinction; threatened, meaning the species is likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed; and vulnerable, meaning the species is a special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events.
There are also two other designations not included on the official COSEWIC list. They are: not at risk and indeterminate.
In almost all cases members are able to reach a consensus on the appropriate designation for a species. Sometimes this takes a number of hours of vigorous discussion, however. During these discussions members are very conscious of shedding their jurisdictional affiliations and acting solely on their own best judgment. Members do not take direction from their superiors and are very aware COSEWIC is an arm's-length organization.
.1640
As mentioned previously, COSEWIC's mandate covers species, subspecies and populations that are nationally significant. COSEWIC's definition of a species is somewhat recondite; it refers to species, subspecies and geographically defined populations. So a COSEWIC-defined species is much more inclusive than a biologically defined species.
It is pretty clear that all Canadian biological species and subspecies are nationally significant. Canada as a nation would obviously be poorer if we were to lose any species or subspecies.
The same is not true of populations. Any species is likely to have innumerable populations. For example, every lake and pond has separate stickleback populations or small fish populations. Not all of them can be nationally significant.
COSEWIC has given a lot of thought to which populations are nationally significant and has decided there are two criteria. One is that the population is genetically distinct in some meaningful manner. The second is that the population represents one of the major Canadian life zones.
For example, under this formulation, COSEWIC might consider as nationally significant grizzly bear or caribou populations if they inhabit the tundra, the boreal forest, the cordillera or the Pacific coastal zone. But COSEWIC would not consider finer subdivisions in this, unless there were some sort of significant genetic differentiation.
It should be noted that a significant proportion of the COSEWIC list to date, particularly of birds and mammals, is in fact comprised of populations and not full biological species. For example, there are eleven species of mammals listed as endangered, only three of which are full biological species.
In the last eighteen years since its inception, COSEWIC has considered status reports for 367 species. The 1995 COSEWIC list numbers 263, of which 118 are vulnerable, 62 are threatened, 55 are endangered, 11 are extirpated and 9 are extinct. As well, 93 species have been established to be not at risk.
These 367 species are all fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians or vascular plants. Together these taxonomic groups comprise about 5,000 known Canadian species. None of these 367 species are echinoderms, tardigrades, arachnids, annelids, coelenterates or any of the many other taxonomic groups that together comprise the 71,000 species known to exist in Canada.
COSEWIC's original mandate covers only 7%, or the most conspicuous, of Canadian life forms. In 1994 COSEWIC received the go-ahead to expand its mandate to include about 4,600 species of lepidopterans, which are butterflies and moths, and about 1,400 species of molluscs, which are shellfish.
The plant subcommittee decided to branch out beyond vascular plants to about 1,000 species of mosses and to tentatively get involved with about 11,000 species of lichens and fungi. This expanded mandate went from 5,000 to 22,000 species and represents about 30% of the known species in Canada.
I think it's fair to say that over the course of its existence COSEWIC has worked very well and has been very successful in establishing a scientifically credible and nationally recognized and acknowledged list of Canadian species at risk. This list gives a fairly accurate and complete picture of the Canadian endangered species situation, at least for the most obvious species.
COSEWIC members themselves are enthusiastic about the process. Many of them have indicated to me that they find it very fulfilling to be able to throw off the bureaucratic bafflegab and political caution, get into a COSEWIC meeting and actually argue biology. COSEWIC members feel they are doing something useful and very important.
COSEWIC does have some problems, however. One of them is that the secretariat, which is housed and funded by the Canadian Wildlife Service, is currently understaffed and overworked. As awareness of endangered species grows in the public, much of the staff's time is spent answering the public's questions.
.1645
The second is that institutional support for taxonomic experts in Canada is declining. Currently three of the six technical subcommittee chairs have been laid off from their work and are performing COSEWIC duties at least partially as volunteers.
The last problem refers to the fact that the amount paid for authors of status reports really has not increased significantly in the past decade. In my view it is unacceptable that status report preparation, which is the foundation for Canada's endangered species system, is limited to $40,000 or $50,000 annually. This is soft, unsecured money, about half of which is raised by non-governmental organizations.
I think it's clear that if COSEWIC is to adequately address the full spectrum of Canadian species at risk, there has to be a predictable allocation for status reports. It has to be secure and it should be increased by an order or magnitude.
That's just a very compressed, thumbnail sketch of how COSEWIC works. I hope it's adequate for the purposes of putting forward a very general understanding of how Canada's designation of species at risk works.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Shank.
Now we move to Stewart Elgie, counsel to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. Please proceed.
Mr. Stewart Elgie (Counsel, Sierra Legal Defence Fund): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me.
For me it's a little bit like déjà vu. About two and a half years ago I appeared before this committee, with some different faces, speaking on the subject of what Canada should do to implement its obligations under the Biodiversity Convention. It's déjà vu in more ways than one, because I think the scaffolding was still in front of the building then. My hope is that we will have legislation covering endangered species before the scaffolding comes down in this country.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, I do not speak French very well. So I'll have to continue in English.
[English]
I represent the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition today. The steering committee of the coalition consists of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club of Canada and l'Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature.
The goal of the coalition is simple: to encourage the federal government to pass strong legislation protecting Canada's endangered species. The coalition's goal is supported by over sixty national organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists and many others.
I've handed out a fairly lengthy brief, which will probably address almost any question you may ask me about legislation. It's about an eighty-page brief called ``Recommendations for Federal Endangered Species Legislation''. You will find a summary of recommendations at the end, which is the shortened version of it.
I've also handed out a one-page condensed list of recommendations, which I will leave with the committee at the end of my talk.
Just to start painting the picture, species loss is a problem we in Canada think of as something that happens in the rain forests of Brazil, but it's a problem here too. As Chris Shank has said, there are nine extinct species in Canada and eleven extirpated species.
[Slide Presentation]
Mr. Elgie: This is a good symbol. The swift fox actually was almost vanished and we brought it back to life. It's an extirpated species that was thought to have vanished from the wild, and through reintroduction efforts has been brought back to some extent in the prairies.
There are 243 more species considered to be endangered or at risk in Canada - things like the Vancouver Island marmot and the Peary caribou, two populations that are endangered in northern Canada.
Many people are surprised to find this critter on the endangered species list; it's actually vulnerable, but the polar bear itself is now at risk in Canada.
Some species are less well known than others, such as the western prairie fringed orchid, which is now one of over 100 plant species on the list. The whooping crane survives now mainly in Wood Buffalo National Park and migrates to the southern U.S. every year.
A well-known species is the beluga whale, which is at risk primarily because of toxic pollution of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River system. Unfortunately the water is so polluted that in many cases the carcasses have to be disposed of as toxic waste when they die.
Finally we have the piping plover, which was originally hunted for hats and is now endangered because of development of beach-front habitat, largely in eastern Canada.
.1650
Those are just a few of the many species at risk in Canada.
Why do we want to save species? One of the reasons is simply that species are an early warning system or indicator. The beluga whale is a good example.
When a species begins to decline, it's often an indication that the ecosystem it's a part of is also at risk. It's like the proverbial canary in a coal mine, and it's something we can identify with. Ecosystems are hard to define. Biodiversity is hard to define. We know a species, we can measure it, and in some ways it's a signal we can't ignore. There are many reasons, but that's one of the clearest.
Why are species declining in Canada? Over 99% of species decline is caused by human activity. The number one cause is habitat loss. Over 80% of the species on COSEWIC's list are declining due to habitat loss. If you're going to solve the endangered species problem, you have to go to the problem itself, which is loss or destruction of habitat. Over-hunting, pollution and introduction of exotic species are also problems and must also be addressed.
I will not go through an analysis of what laws are there today in Canada. You will find those in my brief if you'd like to know. Suffice it to say Canada has no federal endangered species legislation. When I tell that to my law students at UBC every year, a lot of them don't believe me. In fact the Minister of the Environment was somewhat surprised to learn that during her first meeting with some of the environmental groups, and it's shocking to most people, I think. There's a patchwork of laws covering wildlife at the federal level, but none of them deal with protecting endangered species.
At the provincial level, things are a bit better, but not much. Four of Canada's twelve provinces and territories have legislation to protect endangered species. The legislation in Quebec and Manitoba probably comes closest to doing an adequate job. None of them, however, are strong enough. The biggest problem is it's discretionary. The listing is discretionary, protection of habitat is not required in any cases, and enforcement is almost non-existent.
Under Ontario's act, which has been in place 23 years, there have been 4 prosecutions, none of them involving habitat, and the highest fine was $500. There are no reported prosecutions under the other three provincial endangered species acts. So we have a way to go.
Chris Shank has told you a bit about some of our informal programs. COSEWIC is really very well respected and does an excellent job of listing species at risk, given its limited funding. The problem is no legal consequences flow from that, which is a bit like a hospital that registers and diagnoses its patients but then doesn't treat them. What we want to see is some treatment for the patients once we've diagnosed them.
We do have an informal recovery program called RENEW. It has a very limited mandate and so far has prepared recovery plans for only about 13 of the 243 species at risk on COSEWIC's list. Those recovery plans have no legal force, which in many cases prevents them from being effective.
Endangered species legislation obviously isn't the whole solution. We need to encourage voluntary efforts and we need more education, but legislation has to be part of the solution. The Biological Diversity Convention indeed was one of the reasons for instigating the current efforts to protect endangered species.
Article 8.(k) of the convention is important, and I think it's important to know exactly what it says:
- Each nation, as far as possible and appropriate, shall develop necessary legislation to protect
threatened species and populations.
- I emphasize ``species and populations''.
- We recommend that the Government of Canada, working with the provinces and
territories,...take immediate steps to develop an integrated legislative approach to the
protection of endangered species, habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity in Canada.
I should add that we're certainly catching up in some regard on this. The Governments of Japan and Australia passed federal endangered species legislation after signing the Biodiversity Convention in 1992. Our southern neighbour, the U.S., has had strong legislation in place since 1973, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of you wanted to ask questions about that legislation, since there's certainly a good deal of awareness of it in many communities.
.1655
One thing I would say, though, before we talk about some of the specifics is any legislation that comes out must have federal leadership in Canada. One of the reasons is we've analysed all the species on COSEWIC's list and only 15% of them exist exclusively within one province. The other 85% - and these are approximate numbers - are in populations that cross over a provincial or a national border.
Protecting those species, therefore, by definition will require national and international efforts, which is why we need federal leadership in endangered species legislation.
My brief will go through in tremendous detail what I think the necessary elements are. The one page I've handed out to you lists about ten or eleven of what I think the essential elements of endangered species legislation must be, either federally or provincially.
Essentially they involve listing species. Quite simply, you can boil it down to this. If you want to protect endangered species you have to identify species at risk, not kill them, and give them a home. It's about as simple as that, but it needs to be mandatory and it needs to have legal teeth.
Let me emphasize two or three of the points in there. One is - and since this is the topic of the panel, I thought it was appropriate - a preventative approach. One of the weaknesses of the United States Endangered Species Act is it takes too much of a reactive approach. It waits until the patient is in the critical care ward before it does anything.
We're recommending Canada take a more preventative approach. We have a unique opportunity to do that here in Canada right now. If you look at COSEWIC's list, the bulk of our species at risk is in the threatened and vulnerable category. If you think of species decline as an escalator, most of our species are in the middle of the escalator right now. There are 57 of them near the bottom and we have to get them all the way back up the moving staircase, but most of them are about halfway. The U.S., on the other hand, has the bulk of theirs right at the bottom of the escalator, with over 600 species in the endangered category.
What that means is if Canada takes steps now, we have a chance to take a preventative approach to species protection. Preventative approaches are cheaper and more effective, and they involve less conflict because you have more options. If we wait before passing strong legislation, we will be in a position where we have more of those species down at the bottom of the escalator and a lot bigger task ahead of us.
On page 21 of my brief you will find recommendations for three specific ways to put a preventative approach into legislation. First, identify species at risk early in their decline.
The second is to require any development activity that may affect a species to go through an advance review. In other words, don't just punish people after the fact. If somebody's going to develop in species-critical habitat, give them the information ahead of time and allow them to modify their plan or do mitigation measures so that it doesn't affect the species.
The third way is to ensure that government programs and policies are consistent with species protection.
The second point I would emphasize is habitat. As I said earlier, 80% of species decline is due to loss of habitat in Canada. We've lost over 90% of our Carolinian forest in southern Ontario, over 75% of the prairies and the majority of wetlands in southern Canada. Those correspond with species at risk in each of those areas.
In reference to the proposed federal-provincial approach, one comment I would make is this. In order to protect species, and particularly to protect their habitat, it has to be a mandatory requirement. I commend the federal and provincial governments for having come this far in coming up with a proposed national legislative approach. However, what the approach does is give governments the authority to protect species, but it doesn't require them to do so.
In most cases the governments already have that authority. Certainly, increasing the tool box would be nice, but what they need is legislation that requires it to happen. We can no longer leave species protection to a case-by-case basis. We must commit ahead of time, as a nation, to protect endangered species and their critical habitats.
The key section of the proposed approach says provinces and the federal government will decide what, if any, measures they will take to protect listed species. Saying we might protect species is not good enough.
I won't talk about the United States experience except to summarize it as follows. There is a perception that the United States Endangered Species Act has blocked development. Most people have heard of the spotted owl and the snail darter.
But if you analyse the United States experience, what you will find is that according to a survey done by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 99.97% of developments with the potential to conflict with an endangered species or its habitat were able to proceed after advance review. In other words, they were able to identify modifications or mitigation measures that would avoid jeopardizing the species. That's 99.97%.
.1700
In the U.S. there is a procedure to go to when there's an irreconcilable conflict between a species and development, and that's only been required three times in the 21-year history of the act. Two of those are the spotted owl and the snail darter, which are the ones everyone's heard about. Anyway, that's oversimplifying it.
Can we afford to protect endangered species? Presently the federal government spends approximately 10¢ per Canadian on programs to protect endangered species in Canada, according to the best numbers available from the Canadian Wildlife Service. If you look at the federal governments in Australia and the U.S., they spend approximately 35¢ per citizen nationally under their endangered species legislation. That's still a pretty paltry sum. If the Canadian federal government, then, increased funding for endangered species programs by 25¢ per person in Canada, that would go a long way towards protecting species at risk.
In closing, I believe it was Gandhi who said the greatness of a nation and its moral courage can be measured by the way its animals are treated. It's time for Canada to be measured. June 11 will mark the three-year anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit. I would encourage the federal cabinet to approve strong federal endangered species legislation by that date and to have legislation in Parliament by the fall of this year.
Thank you.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): On a point of information, your text says 19¢ per Canadian. You said 10¢.
Mr. Elgie: Thank you for correcting that; 10¢ is the correct figure.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Now to you, Professor Thomas from Guelph University.
Professor Vernon Thomas (Department of Zoology, University of Guelph): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the forum. Good afternoon.
I would like to begin by saying that my presentation is not an anti-hunting nor an anti-fishing presentation. Rather, one could interpret my remarks as remarks devised to make these activities more sustainable into the future.
I have presented each of you with a dossier of papers and abstracts, and at this point I would indicate to you that there are two levels of information. In sections 1 and 2 there are briefing notes and a synopsis of the presentation I'm giving this afternoon.
I would draw your attention to sections 3 and 4, where there are two very short, intelligible papers presented for the OECD last September on the issue of shot and the issue of sinkers. These are still current papers in terms of the validity of their content and information. I would advise you to derive a certain amount of information from them in addition to my verbal presentation today.
Yesterday and today we heard of insurmountable problems facing wildlife. In the area of toxins we know there are tremendous cocktails going through our lakes, rivers and air. A lot of these solutions seem distant, involving mega-dollars, many layers of government and layers of society and industry.
By contrast, the issue I'm going to present to you today is relatively simple. It's the issue of shot and fishing sinkers. Compared to the chemical cocktails in the Saguenay River and the Great Lakes, this is an issue we can resolve. We can make a distinctive, single step forward in the treatment of our wildlife in Canada.
The bottom-line statement I'm going to give you today is the science has been done. We don't need to waste - and I emphasize waste - money on more research. It will not enhance our understanding. For shot and fishing sinkers, science and technology have given a large array of substitutes that are effective and deemed to be non-toxic.
We have ample legislation in this country at federal and provincial levels to enact a transition. We have international precedents; we have international obligations to act. What is missing is the political will to bring about these non-toxic transitions into our angling and hunting communities. That is the bottom line, and if nothing else, please remember that.
Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Say shooting and angling were to be inaugurated today as novel activities - novel pastimes - in Canada's history. You would ask the following questions: ``What shall we use for shot? What shall we use for fishing weights, or sinkers?'' There is absolutely no way we would choose lead knowing what we know. With the amount of literature that is in our libraries and the amount of toxicological evidence that is available to us, we would choose something other than lead.
.1705
So the question I propose to you is how will we get the lead out? Part of the remainder of this address offers some suggestions.
I'll emphasize that we're not talking here about a problem of contamination caused by industries, which are the lifeblood of communities and major generators of economies. We are talking about people having fun - about fishing and shooting as recreation, whether it's shooting waterfowl or clay targets at a range. This is a recreational activity and it must be placed in that context.
Using some photographs, let me show you the magnitude of the problem in Canada.
[Slide Presentation]
Prof. Thomas: This is the scenario: a fellow shooting waterfowl in a marsh. There you see cartridges. For every shot, approximately one ounce of lead pellets will fall into that marsh. How do these become a problem for the birds? Waterfowl, whether they're ducks, geese or swans, will swallow those lead pellets on the bottom, believing them to be either food or the grit needed for digestion.
How much lead is added? The United States estimated that prior to 1991, when they banned lead shot for waterfowling, between 3,000 and 3,500 metric tonnes of lead pellets were added to the marsh annually. They accumulate; they do not disappear. They remain there, potentially toxic, for centuries.
This shows you a cartridge, and there are approximately 200 to 250 pellets inside that cartridge. If four of those pellets are consumed by a duck, that duck will die from chronic lead-poisoning, no ifs or buts. That is the fact. That's the magnitude of the problem.
Here I'm using Government of Canada data showing the problems associated with lead toxicosis across the nation. This shows the eastern provinces, and where you can see a red or a yellow dot on the map, it means the birds in that area are showing dramatically high levels of lead. This is work produced in 1993 by the Canadian Wildlife Service. It's based upon young birds that had been alive for perhaps four to five months. The analyses are based on levels of lead in the bones, so it shows an accumulative picture. Anywhere there is a yellow or red spot, we should remember there is a high problem of lead-poisoning.
What that shows us is for a bird going through Prince Edward Island, you have to be concerned not only about the lead in the air but also the lead in the water - a good place to avoid. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are showing areas where there are tremendous prevalences of lead-poisoning in birds.
This is the picture for Quebec. What we see is that along the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence, there is a wall of lead. Is it any wonder that we have an export problem? We are exporting lead-poisoning to the United States. This is a real trans-boundary problem.
The next slide shows Ontario. Again, where you see red or yellow, we have a major problem of lead-poisoning of birds. This should have been the first province to ban lead decades ago.
The next slide shows the western prairie provinces. In Manitoba we have red and yellow spots indicating areas of high lead contamination. Despite the protestations of Saskatchewan and particularly Alberta that they don't have a lead-poisoning problem because they can't find bucketfuls of dead ducks, here is the government's independent data showing there are red and yellow spots in both of those provinces.
.1710
I have excluded B.C. due to time constraints and also because they have agreed to ban lead shot, beginning September 1995, for waterfowling.
Let's move to fishing sinkers, briefly.
This is very often the cause of the death of a loon - a single fishing sinker ingested either by consuming a fish that had a hook, line and sinker attached or in the same way as waterfowl, by picking these sinkers up from the marsh or lake bottom, believing them to be stones they use for digestion.
A sinker is approximately half a centimetre across, which is a fatal dose of lead for any loon, any cormorant, any heron, any gull that picks it up. There's no if or but about that. The science is definitive. That is a lethal dose.
How many of these sinkers are lying around? This shows an individual who went just snorkelling, not scuba-diving, in one of Ontario's provincial parks last summer. In one day this individual, stopping for lunch, coffee and tea, recovered 803 lead sinkers, weighing 52 pounds. And he was not the only person doing it in that particular lake. Any one of those is more than a death sentence for a loon. That's a measure of the problem that confronts us today.
The question is how many birds do we need to have die before we act? There are people who, as I speak, would say ``I haven't seen huge numbers of birds dying. Maybe we get one or two here or there. What does it matter if it's a low number?'' The answer is there is no critical threshold, no critical level below which you do nothing and above which you begin to do something that will help.
You can't go to scientists and say ``Tell me what is the critical number'', because this is an abuse of science. Scientists are not supposed to do those sorts of things. We are making value judgments, and the value judgments vary according to the birds.
Regarding loons at risk, society might say ``We don't want any of our loons going'', but for gulls they might take a different attitude.
Let me put this in an historical context. In the 1970s and 1980s, the United States was losing a large number of golden bald eagles by virtue of lead-poisoning. They would feed upon the many dead, shot ducks that were lying around in the marshes. As a consequence, the United States said they did not want any of their national emblems being lost in this way. The pressure to protect eagles was the dominant factor leading to the 1991 ban of lead shot for waterfowling in the United States.
At this point in time we are exporting lead-poisoned ducks to the U.S. Pathologists in New York state and Wisconsin are reporting the arrival of lead-poisoned birds in those states. We are still exporting lead-poisoned eagles to the United States. We're thwarting, in a sense, the intent of the U.S. legislation by not acting reciprocally.
What compels us to act? We have alternates to lead. We have tin, bismuth, molybdenum, tungsten and stainless steel sinkers. They're on the market; you can buy them today in any store around here. We have effective substitutes for shot in the forms of steel and, recently, bismuth. They are available.
We have the technology in the industry. Industry is not to blame. They've gone hand in hand with the need to bring about this revision. I can name twelve companies that produce non-toxic shot. I can name six companies in the United States that are producing non-toxic sinkers at this point.
We have an obligation, under the migratory birds treaty signed with the United States in 1916, to protect species. If we take the Canadian enactment of this, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, there is a section in that act that says we must take action against environmental toxins that impact upon migratory birds. It's there. We use it for hot spots; why not use it to extend across the entire country?
Do these hot spots work? The answer is no. It's almost like trying to maintain a zone of fresh water in the middle of the Pacific. The United States will candidly admit that hot spots are politically useful but biologically ineffective in preventing lead-poisoning. Why? Because the hot spot is small and the birds are migratory; they move in and out.
.1715
Why have we not acted? At this point in time I may be excused, I hope, for putting a certain amount of blame on a certain government department. In my opinion, the Canadian Wildlife Service is culpable for not having shown decisive leadership and initiative by acting on this problem sooner in conjunction with the provinces.
Let me take your collection of papers and quote to you from Dr. Wendt, who was here yesterday giving testimony before this committee. He said:
- The solution to waterfowl contamination by lead shot in Canada is the mandatory use of
non-toxic shot in areas where the problem has been shown to be significant.
- This approach must be applied much more broadly than is the case in 1993 if the risk of
lead-poisoning in waterfowl is to be reduced.
- Obviously Dr. Wendt was blowing in the wind.
Again, I say we have the problem and we need the will of the civil service, not the elected members of government, to act.
Yesterday we heard Dr. Wendt indicate that NAWAMP, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, was a major initiative. It cost a lot of money, approximately $100 million a year, spent on rehabilitating wetlands for waterfowl.
It's paradoxical that 80% of those moneys is spent in the western prairie provinces, where they deem that they don't have a lead-poisoning problem. I would say to you it is ridiculous to spend that amount of money each year rehabilitating and acquiring wetlands when we continue to foul them up with lead. This is illogical. What we should do is both acquire and protect.
What other legislation do we have in Canada on which we can act? All the provinces have adequate levels of legislation to bring in bans on fishing sinkers as well as on shot.
At the federal level we have the National Parks Act, which can regulate the use of fishing sinkers in national parks, and we certainly have CEPA, I hope in its amended form, which allows us to regulate the production, the importation, the sale and perhaps the use of shot and sinkers.
Internationally there are major precedents. In 1993 the Netherlands produced a total ban on the use of lead. Denmark had done so earlier. It's not because they wanted to get at anglers and hunters. It's because this was consistent with the policy to remove toxic lead from their total environment.
Any action to remove lead is totally consistent with the Biodiversity Convention. The Bonn Convention, a major piece of European legislation protecting birds throughout Europe and North Africa, requires a ban on lead in European weapons before the end of this decade.
The OECD held a conference in Toronto last year and is recommending, primarily through the European Union and the United States - not Canada, incidentally - action at the level of an OECD council act to bring about an end to the use of forms of lead that are clearly inconsistent with maintaining clean environments.
Let's not forget the UN Convention on Environment and Development, particularly principle 15, which is the precautionary principle. This is really the principle on which this committee is resting. Also, principle 16 says the polluter shall pay.
In North America we could look at NAFTA and its adjunct, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, an agreement that in a sense could have been written for lead specifically, because it talks about products throughout their entire life cycle. It talks about trans-boundary pollution. It talks about protecting species and their habitats.
The legislation is there. We have to act.
I have one last statement. If it is seen that we have to go into ponderous deliberations with the provinces before we can act at a federal level, I would remind you of the following. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin, rescinded the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement. That has much more impact upon the economy, the farming community and Canadians than anything to do with non-toxic shot or sinkers. I would use that as the precedent for this committee in advocating strong, immediate action on this issue. Thank you.
.1720
The Chairman: As you can hear, we have a vote in a few minutes. We will reconvene here immediately after the vote, probably around 5:45 p.m., so as to permit a good round of questions until we have completed this panel. We will then have a break around 6:30 p.m. or so for one hour for dinner, and then reconvene at 7:30 p.m. I thank you very much.
This meeting is temporarily adjourned.
.1721
PAUSE
.1750
[Translation]
The Chairman: The forum resumes its work. We have a round of questions of five minutes each and we may be able to have a second one if all members are co-operative.
Mrs. Guay.
Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): I have been trying to take some notes. Mr. Slater, you indicated earlier that there is no legislation dealing specifically with wildlife, there being rather four major legislative measures, and you stated that it would eventually be necessary to adopt a specific act at the federal level. I would like to know where these major legislative measures can be found and whether they are being implemented. Are they administered by the Department of the Environment? How did the system operate currently? I would like a brief answer so that I can ask other questions.
[English]
Mr. Slater: There are four pieces of federal legislation that have a bearing upon the protection of endangered species, but none of them are specifically and exclusively designed to protect endangered species. Similarly, as Mr. Elgie mentioned, there are four provinces, two of which, we believe, have an exemplary law, two are not bad and the others have relatively modest efforts.
The way it works at the moment is really through a collaborative action triggered by the findings of the COSEWIC committee, which provides the list. Then there's the development of voluntary recovery or renewal plans to restore those species back into the environment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Shank, you talked about the problems that go hand-in-hand with the establishment of the lists of species that are at risk or that have to be protected. Don't the provinces already have ready-made lists that could be used as the starting point and be updated in order to save money? We know that we cannot invest very much money. One third of the budget of the Department of the Environment has been cut. What can be done so that the necessary measures can be taken rapidly? You told us that a report should be presented after May 31, 1995 so that this legislation could be drafted as soon as possible. We have to act rapidly.
[English]
Mr. Shank: To the best of my knowledge, there are only four provinces that maintain lists of endangered species. The COSEWIC list, as I mentioned, is solely for species of national significance. As far as the reporting goes, COSEWIC puts out an updated list of Canadian species at risk every year. That is the primary report that comes at the national scale. Does that answer your question?
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Elgie, I would like to ask you a question about the way it is done in the United States. You referred to it but without elaborating much. I know that the individual states work under the EPA, but how exactly? Are some species safeguarded in some states where EPA is implemented? How does the situation in the United States compare to our situation here in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Elgie: It would be a long answer to answer all of that, but I'll give you a short answer and leave the committee with a copy of a three-page paper I did that helps address that question.
.1755
The U.S. act has many of the elements we're recommending. What they do is quite simple. They list species that are threatened or endangered. They identify the habitat of those species. They prevent people from directly killing the species. In most cases, they also prevent actions that will harm the habitat. Then they require recovery plans.
That's a bit oversimplified, but those are the basic steps. It's administered by the equivalent of the Canadian Wildlife Service: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The first difference is that the U.S. has a federal endangered species act and we don't. The history is interesting though, and I'll give it to you quickly. The U.S. left the protection of endangered species up to the states for most of the 1950s and 1960s for the same reasons we do here, which is a feeling that the federal government traditionally hadn't dealt with that. They ran into the same problem we're seeing, which was that species were continuing to decline. So in 1973 the federal government made the unusual move of stepping into this arena and passing a strong federal endangered species act.
Maybe I'll leave you with the paper that describes some of the effectiveness. The principal result is that they've managed, as I said in my talk, to focus the act on ensuring that the development that's planned doesn't conflict with species that are listed.
They've found that over 99.9% of developments that may conflict with a species can be resolved through this advance review process. It's a very effective idea. It's the few that don't get resolved that you hear about.
Mr. Adams: Gentlemen, I really enjoyed your presentations. I want to walk you through an analogy with which you're all familiar. It's the analogy between the exercise we're engaged in and the public health revolution of not long ago, maybe 150 or 200 years. What happened then was that somebody scientifically demonstrated a link between dirt and disease, cleanliness and health.
I'm sure there was a debate. I'm sure people thought that dirt was good for you and all that stuff. Dr. Thomas is here today, and he's an example of that. The scientific community became convinced that dirt and disease were related. Then a whole group of people developed ways of coping with that. Most of you, in fact even Dr. Thomas to some extent, have really been addressing that. This includes, for example, ways of running hospitals and kitchens, how to build sewers and also awareness programs so that people develop in the way in which they can improve their personal hygiene. That's the kind of thing you're addressing.
Then there was the question of producing political will. These aren't necessarily in order. There's legislation with laws, penalties and rewards for being clean, penalties for being dirty, and so on.
By the way, the political will included spending a lot of money. Say these are built around sewers, just for starters. But then the key part of this exercise was the convincing of each individual that he or she was at risk. So today, in our most intimate, private moments, we behave in ways in which people did not do before that revolution.
I would suggest to you - I've mentioned the earlier parts and Mr. Elgie deals with the legislated part - that it's the last part we're missing. You said, Mr. Elgie, that endangered species are an indicator of the rest of wildlife. In this forum, we are treating wildlife as an indicator for the whole system. In that system, another species at risk that's not on that list is us.
Going back to this point, I would suggest to you that until we convince ourselves in our private moments - I don't mean when we behave and when we recycle and stuff like that - that we are at risk, that our species, or whatever the highest category is on the list here, is not going to make any progress.
Have you any thoughts about that? I understand, Mr. Shank, that you said people used endangered species in all sorts of ways, such as to raise money and stuff like that. But they don't very often relate it back to themselves and to the fact that our species is at risk on this planet. Would any of you care to comment on that?
.1800
Mr. Elgie: I'll take a bit of a shot at it. What you're talking about is a problem of education and awareness, obviously. In a lot of ways, it's very hard for people to understand the relationship between themselves and the health of ecosystems because in our society we've distanced ourselves from our relationship with nature. How to bridge that gap is an enormous question.
To some extent though, individual species and endangered species are good because people relate to them. It's something that already draws a response from a lot of people, and at least it's a first step in the education process.
There are some specific numbers you can use to help people understand the importance. Take, for example, medicines. Almost half the medicines that are prescribed in Canada come from natural species. Mario Lemieux would probably have died of leukemia last year if it hadn't been for the rosy periwinkle in Madagascar, which produced a treatment. The aspirin we all take comes from species. Taxol, which is used to treat cancer, comes from the Pacific yew in B.C.
There certainly are ways of talking about direct human benefit from protecting species, but the harder issue is realizing how we're dependent on the life-supporting systems of the planet itself. There's really no shortcut other than getting that into the education system and public awareness.
Mr. Adams: We weren't converted in this other revolution from the love of cleanliness; we were converted from fear of disease and death. That's really what did it.
Mr. Slater: If you believe in sustainable development, you have to accept the idea that we believe as a people, as a species, that we're smart enough to be able to love cleanliness, and that we're smart enough to consciously change the way we do things so that the environmental imprint of our existence on the planet is reduced.
It actually says on the global scale that with a population of 12 billion people by the middle of the next century and an economy that could be valued at somewhere between $120 trillion to $150 trillion, that this massive increase in population and this even larger and more rapid increase in the economy can be experienced with a net effect that is a smaller, lesser footprint than we are imposing today. It says we're smart enough to will that change rather than to engage in a reptilian response to a catastrophe, which is the other way of making the change.
Mr. Adams: I suspect it isn't an intellectual problem. I was trying to be a bit shocking. Of course the shock will come when we're at 12 billion and we're consuming at our present rates. But by then it's too late.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): My first question is for Mr. Slater. It deals with the budgetary cuts that have been announced in Environment Canada. I know the committee will be looking at the estimates, but for the purposes of this forum, I wonder if he has any information on how the cuts will affect the Canadian Wildlife Service.
Mr. Slater: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the precise numbers in front of me. I'd be more than pleased to provide those to the committee and certainly engage in that discussion when we go through the estimates.
The approximate number in the Canadian Wildlife Service across the country is in the order of 25%. But within that, the minister has directed us to actually increase our expenditures over time for the protection of endangered species. It wasn't across the board; it was selective and it accommodates new priorities.
Mr. DeVillers: Yes, it was more services than numbers that I was interested in.
Mr. Slater: The actual reduction in services?
Mr. DeVillers: Yes, if any, and how they would impact.
.1805
Mr. Slater: Yes, there will be an impact across the organization. As I indicated, we're trying to go through a very difficult process of deciding what things are more important than other things.
The reductions will be in all areas. They'll be in scientific activity and in our relationships with universities. In conjunction with the endangered species initiative, we are having what I believe will be far-reaching discussions with the provinces on the way to share the roles we each play. This is so that the interests of Canadians at large can be preserved, even though there may be some adjustment between the feds and the provinces in the process.
Mr. DeVillers: My second question would be to Mr. Elgie. I think one of his recommendations was that we need early identification of species that are in trouble. I'm wondering whether we have that capacity now. How would the cuts that we're looking at in services affect that capacity?
Mr. Elgie: I'll answer the first part of your question: do we have that capacity now? Chris Shank may be a better person to answer that. I think the way COSEWIC now goes about listing species at risk is a fairly good model for how you identify species early in their decline. They have a ``vulnerable'' category, which is intended to identify species at risk early.
This is what should be changed. There need to be some consequences that flow from that. I would describe it as a yellow-light approach. The legislation should treat that as a cautionary signal and inspire some management measures.
Whether or not the cuts will affect that, I do not know. I'd have to ask someone else to comment on that.
Certainly, protecting endangered species, as I said, is not a very expensive venture. If you look at the total budget that Australia and the U.S. spend, it's about 35¢ per capita. We're not talking about breaking the bank here to protect endangered species.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I want to thank all of you for your very good presentations. They were very informative.
I'm of the same opinion as Mr. Adams, which is that until we realize humanity is an endangered species, we're never going to really do anything significant about the problem. We're going to continue arguing whether a highway is more important than a spotted owl.
I have two fairly specific questions. The first one has to do with the consultation process around the endangered species legislation. I saw the timetable with the different locations.
I'm just wondering, because these hearings are televised, whether you can let the Canadian public know, as well as me and my colleagues, about how the public can participate in the consultations.
Second, I had a question about lead shot, sinkers, and weights, which I put to witnesses yesterday. I had been informed that, after a process of negotiation with the provinces, it wouldn't be likely that they would be able to do something significant about the banning of lead shot and sinkers until 2000. I'm just looking for more clarification about that. I'm just wondering why we can't move a little faster.
Mr. Slater: I'll answer the second question first. While I'm doing that, perhaps someone could provide me with an answer to the first.
As for the issue on lead shot and sinkers, Dr. Thomas was very eloquent and persuasive on this subject. We have recently completed a major review of all the information and evidence available on the subject.
It has been clear and it was pointed out that we have operated on decision-making for this in a collaborative fashion with provincial governments. That is the way we function in this area.
We are sending this report to provinces within the next few days. It is being finalized for that purpose. It will be discussed at a national wildlife meetings taking place in June, and it's our intention to push for an early decision on how to deal with this problem.
.1810
As Dr. Thomas pointed out, British Columbia has acted to prohibit lead shot this year. Other provinces are indicating a move from previous positions. We want to push that in this meeting in June.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Why was I told 2000?
Mr. Slater: I think that's probably the ``slowest'' common denominator.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I hope the trumpeter swans in Ontario understand that. Perhaps you have information on the first question.
Mr. Slater: In order to attend the meetings, which are located in all capitals across the country, they should contact Lynda Maltby. Her telephone number is 819-953-4389. You can also engage in the process on the Green Lane, on the information highway. You correspond with Jim Foley at FoleyJcpits1.am.doe.ca.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have a further point of clarification. If members of the public or people from my riding of York - Simcoe wanted to participate in these consultations, they would phone Lynda Maltby. Do they have to prepare a brief? How do they engage themselves further in the process?
Mr. Slater: Why don't I ask Lynda, who's organizing these things all across the country, to join us?
Ms Lynda Maltby (Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada): I'm Linda Maltby, Chief of Endangered Species Conservation with the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada.
Essentially, this is sort of overseeing the endangered species issue in the next few months or so.
With respect to your question, there are several means and ways in which the public can get in touch or at least participate in the overall consultation process. They can get the information by Internet from this blue book, which is the address that Bob just gave you.
There will be advisories and press releases at least one or two weeks in advance in the various local papers in cities in which the workshops are going to take place. People are invited to at least contact the workshop coordinators in that particular city for information and for the products they would likely want to use at the workshops themselves.
The workshops are open to the public. It is anticipated that, although we have invited stakeholder groups to be present at the workshops, public participation will be allowed at the workshops at the same time.
So there are several different ways. They can get hold of this blue book and read it. There are some questions in the back of the blue book that can be sent directly to us at the address in the blue book. That way, I think it'll cover most of the aspects of the public consultation.
Mr. Elgie: I would add that if anyone in the public is interested, they should phone the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. The call is free: 1-800-267-4088. Ask for Francesca Binda.
We'll certainly provide information on the hearings and on how the legislation could be strengthened to effectively protect endangered species in Canada.
.1815
The Chairman: I want to convey the following message to the Canadian Wildlife Service officers in this room on the question of lead shot and sinkers, which is very disturbing. I would like to assure them that there is no politician who, in his or her right mind, would oppose a shift from lead to non-toxic alternatives at this stage, with the knowledge that has been produced by people like Professor Thomas and others on the toxicity of these products. There is not one ounce of evidence of opposition to that. It seems that it is purely bureaucratic foot dragging of the first order that is taking place.
Some of us have written to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The replies we receive say that additional studies are needed, but maybe, in 1996, something could be done or brought into effect, but it isn't quite clear at all.
It seems to me that unless the officials in the Canadian Wildlife Service give some strong leadership on this matter, we will be discussing this matter here until 2000, as Madam Kraft Sloan has indicated from her findings yesterday. There is no justification for this slowness in procedure. It really is a very disturbing pattern because it is impossible to identify any form of political opposition to this type of shift.
We hope we will not have the embarrassment, two years from now, when we hold this forum again, of having to go into this matter and find it unresolved at that time. We really hope and sincerely ask that you put your minds and efforts and skills into this understandably difficult negotiation with the provinces to move this item ahead.
It was announced a month ago - we all heard it and we applauded - that evidently British Columbia has moved, so to speak. Why are the remaining jurisdictions not doing the same? That is extremely difficult to understand. The evidence produced today by Professor Thomas is stunning and disturbing. It's profoundly disturbing because of the long-term consequences also on human health. Who knows? Therefore, we ask you to really put your minds to it and get this item moving once and for all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Slater, you stated that you always negotiate your agreements with the provinces; we know, however, that some harmonization agreements that had been negotiated did not work out as planned. Far-reaching projects had been envisioned at the start and we ended up with some voluntary measures, among others regarding greenhouse gas emissions. It is very difficult to reach functional agreements with ten provinces.
I have two concerns. First, how can wildlife legislation be implemented and enforced by the ten provinces and the territories. Secondly, where is the money coming from? Major cuts are being made in the federal Department of the Environment and the same thing will happen in the provincial environment departments. Some smaller and less endowed provinces may not want to pick their taxpayers' pockets for the protection of wildlife. I am very much aware that it has to be done, but I come back to the core. How can this be efficiently implemented in the field, so that we don't pass an Act that cannot be enforced because no agreement has been reached with the provinces and money is lacking?
.1820
[English]
Mr. Slater: I can give you a bit of a status report as to where we are relative to when the initiative was launched by the minister in November, when she met with the coalition, of which Mr. Elgie is a leading member.
In November, we did not forecast that we would be as far advanced and as constructively advanced as we are today. We have made an extraordinary amount of progress in our discussions with the provinces, aboriginal peoples, and, in fact, with all of the interested parties who are going to have to play an important role in dealing with endangered species.
From our vantage point, as a government, the most important groups with which we absolutely have to come to an understanding are the provincial governments and also the aboriginal jurisdictions established under land claim settlements.
We had originally planned to hold those public consultation meetings somewhat earlier than the time at which they are now scheduled. The reason we have delayed this is because we were making progress with our provincial colleagues, who were establishing an essential and important ground swell of support in their jurisdictions for this initiative. It was on those grounds that we believe that this short delay has been very important and effective.
I'll ask Mr. Elgie to comment, because his views on how we are doing may be somewhat different from our views on how we're doing.
In terms of the impact of funding levels available to the federal government and provincial governments in order to achieve the objectives that we all share, as Mr. Elgie said, this need not be a super-expensive set of initiatives. It's more important, I believe, to do existing things that we already do in a new way, rather than necessarily to do new things. It is more important to, when we develop, learn how to develop in a way that respects endangered species than to do something brand new. It is more important that we understand how to manage our forests and our agricultural lands in that way.
Prof. Thomas: Mrs. Guay, I can give you a few statistics that might help. Just consider what the governments of North America are spending on waterfowl and wetland rehabilitation each year. Over 15 years, it's approximately $100 million per year. I know that the amount of money spent by the Government of Canada directly for that is approximately $10 million. This is for species that, at this point, are not endangered. It's for the benefit of species that are consumed by approximately one-third of a million hunters, at most, in Canada.
I would say that, while I agree with spending money on wetlands, we need to shift priorities. If we can spend that amount of federal money on waterfowl species that are for direct consumption and are not in any way threatened, perhaps we could divert some of those dollars into the sorts of programs that involve threatened and endangered species, and make those programs fly.
Mr. Elgie: I would just briefly say that I agree with Mr. Slater in that a fair amount of progress has been made in terms of federal-provincial cooperation over the last six months.
.1825
In terms of the process of collaboration, I would give them about a B. The substance is probably still somewhere around a D. The fact that everyone is talking is very important, as is the fact that they're committed in principle to coming up with legislation.
The draft legislation on the table, though - I won't beat a dead horse - really proposes to do not much more than give governments the capacity to protect endangered species. They need to move the next step toward a commitment to protect endangered species.
Having said that, the progress to date certainly has been remarkable. If it continues, maybe we'll get to where we need to go.
Mr. Adams: As you know, our time is running out, but I have a few things that really are housekeeping. First, take the blue book you refer to. For the record, is it called a National Approach to Endangered Species Conservation in Canada: A Discussion Document?
Mr. Elgie, I note that the caveat on this publication of yours is extremely comprehensive. Is it not appropriate for us to mention its title and give the reference and the source or something like that? Would you care to do that?
Mr. Elgie: There's a publication that the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition has put out called Recommendations for Federal Endangered Species Legislation. It's available to anyone who wants it by calling 1-800-267-4088. It's based on a review of endangered species laws in Australia, the U.S. and four Canadian provinces, as well as private members' bills like Mr. Caccia's. It attempts to take the best elements of all of those and recommend an effective, preventive approach to protecting species. I take it you've read it in the hour since I gave it out.
Mr. Adams: I had no difficulty at all.
Dr. Thomas and Mr. Slater, there is in Hansard today a very short statement endorsing what our chair has said about lead shots and sinkers. I hope it's of use to you in your endeavours, Mr. Slater.
In that regard, I know that the ministry has been severely affected, like all the others, by these cuts we've imposed. I really understand that. Despite our previous discussion here, I would urge you to do all you can to nurture - this is not just endangered species and in the Canadian Wildlife Service, but perhaps it's particularly in those areas - the research, particularly the monitoring potential, of the ministry.
In this area we're talking about, there is a great danger in stringent times - these are going to go on for a number of years now - to lack really sophisticated monitoring. I don't just mean going and doing measurements, but monitoring being done by sophisticated people who are conducting their own research and so on. So I would urge you, in all parts of the ministry, to nurture the research potential.
Mr. Shank, this is out of curiosity. I see Peary caribou in here. I noticed that they've been up-listed. I wondered what it was that put them at risk, given that they're in the very high Arctic. The Banks Island ones are not that far north, I suppose, but why would a species like that be at risk?
Mr. Shank: The simple answer is that we don't know. There are a number of suppositions. One of them is that it may be due to global warming, which has affected the moisture patterns in the north. This is causing more icing in the early fall. The idea is that there are more temperatures right around freezing, which creates an ice pan over the grass. Over the course of the winter, this results in starvation.
It's a very difficult hypothesis to test, unfortunately. That's probably the best we can come up with at the moment.
Mr. Adams: Those species that are remote from us and that are not being heavily hunted because very few people live near them are at risk as much as the ones that are in much closer contact with us.
Mr. Shank: There's really no place in the world that is free from human intervention.
Mr. DeVillers: My first question would be for Dr. Thomas. I think you indicated in your presentation that Canada is, in effect, exporting lead poisoning to the U.S., where they have a ban on lead shot and sinkers. I assume that's not well received there. I'm wondering if, in your experience and your dealings, you could maybe describe what the reaction has been.
.1830
Prof. Thomas: There's a certain level of frustration expressed by civil servants and others involved with conservation and environmental clean-up in the United States. It's a frustration. Given there is the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which entails an expectation that the members reciprocate progressive attitudes, why is it that Canada cannot reciprocate that clear-cut, imaginative step that was made four years ago by the United States? We share the same birds and flyways. In our educated country, doesn't logic permeate borders?
I know two senators in the United States who are a little upset, to say the least, about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Of the moneys in that plan, 75% of it is raised in the United States and largely spent in Canada. The plan does not require any NAWMP-rehabilitated or NAWMP-acquired lands to be zoned from the beginning as lead-free regions. They said it's ridiculous. You're creating new habitat and, at the same time, you are negating its value to the birds we're trying to protect. They said that this is a clear-cut breach of logic.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you. The second question is for Mr. Elgie. In your recommendation 2(i), you say the legislation should ``Provide for assistance and incentives to encourage private landowners to protect species at risk''.
Could you explain how they would do that? Do you mean tax incentives for capital gains for lands to be donated or willed? Or is there something else that you mean there?
Mr. Elgie: That's certainly one of the suggestions. That was one of the parts I took out of my presentation. In my brief, beginning at page 60, there are specific recommendations for the protection of endangered species on private land. I won't read out each of the specific suggestions, but there are a number of ways.
I'll start by saying that most private landowners are all too pleased to protect endangered species on their property once they know they're there. Some of them consider it an unfair burden in that it may limit other uses, but certainly the great majority of them, I suspect, are pleased to do it.
The experience in the U.S. is that you need to focus more on the carrot than the stick when you're dealing with private landowners. Draconian, hard-line measures, although required perhaps in a few instances, ought not to be the focus.
I recommend a number of things. One is that landowners who want to come up with conservation plans for their property but don't have the time or expertise to do it ought to have assistants in the government. There ought to be people specifically designated to help people develop conservation plans for their areas and, ideally, for several landowners together.
Some of this is happening on a voluntary basis in parts of Canada. Now it ought to be expanded.
Information is important. People need to understand why protecting species on their property matters and how their contribution can really help. Some people may even want to generate revenue from it. They may want to encourage bird-watching on their site. If so, they ought to be encouraged and allowed to do that.
The harder-line measures, though, are things like tax incentives. The budget has proposed creating conservation covenants or easements, which is a good start. That would allow people who dedicate some or all of their property to habitat conservation to receive charitable advantages. I would suggest that there ought to be tax advantages for people who take some land out of production to dedicate it to endangered species habitat protection, either in terms of provincial or municipal property taxes or federal capital gains taxes. That's something the federal government could and should do.
Traditionally, as Dr. Thomas said, we've spent literally billions of dollars subsidizing activities that actually result in the destruction of species habitat on private lands. We have paid people to cultivate marginal lands that may be the habitat of species.
For a very small fraction of that money, we ought to provide some assistance to landowners who volunteer to take some of their lands out of production and put that toward habitat conservation. The economic benefits far outweigh the costs. Canadians spend more than $8 billion a year on wildlife-related activities. Spending a tiny fraction of that to reward owners of private land who provide this public service would make sense.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Just about all the witnesses we had throughout the forum have talked about the need for public education. However, there are incredibly entrenched attitudes and very powerful forces that seem to work against more enlightened ideas in this area. If you begin to speak about some of these things in some quarters, you're dismissed as being an environmentalist.
.1835
We don't have a lot of time. This was kind of the focus of our discussion yesterday. Also, we don't have a lot of money. I'm going to throw it out to the panel to see if they can think of how we might change the message and the medium, and perhaps even think of the target. Do we have to change the target of our message? How can we be more effective in delivering a communication message if there are some ideas. I know it's not a simple question to answer quickly. Public education, yes, but what is it that we have to do to be more effective and do it at a faster rate?
Prof. Thomas: I can give you two suggestions that could be implemented almost immediately. For example, the Canadian Wildlife Service has, or used to have, a series of vignettes on television called Hinterland Who's Who, which is some simple information about birds.
I think we could change the message. One can put out a simple statement to the effect that this form of shot kills birds when it's scattered through the environment. This form of fishing sinker kills your favourite loon species or some other one. We have the medium and we've already had a history of using it. Simply change the message a little bit.
In coming here on the airplane, I leafed through the En Route and the Air Canada equivalent of it. This is a perfect medium for getting across information on endangered species. Use it in the same way that we've used the message about drugs putting you in a rather dark, dingy prison cell. This is a captive audience. They're looking for something to read. Put full-page or two-page messages in En Route.
Similarly, there's the other type of message about the use of non-toxic shot and fishing sinkers. We have the media, but we haven't used it imaginatively to solve a particular goal.
Mr. Shank: I might just mention that the power of the Internet has not really been engaged yet in Canada in the endangered species conservation programs. The Canadian Wildlife Service could very well get together a World Wide Web front page on endangered species to provide information to people throughout the world on what's going on in Canada at the moment.
Mr. Elgie: I think your question is really a fundamental one: how do we, at the gut level, encourage people to care about and understand their relationship with wildlife and with nature generally?
You should almost have an educator here. Having been raised by a bunch of them, I guess I've vicariously picked it up a little. My sense is that, obviously, most of our learning occurs in our younger years. There are a number of things that could be done, such as encouraging or making environmental studies mandatory for children in the school system.
My experience as a teacher in the university tells me that the one class of the year that my students learn most about the environment is the class in which they get out of the classroom. We go out to a national park or a forest. Rather than just talking about the laws, we actually talk about them in the context of the place. They understand, with more than just their brain, why it matters.
If we, as a society, want to encourage what David Orr calls ``ecological literacy'', then we need to make it as important a priority as other kinds of literacy. In fact, that's a book worth reading: Ecological Literacy by David Orr. It talks about how we make our relationship with nature a part of our everyday life.
Mr. Slater: My kids have a slight problem understanding this. They cannot imagine themselves being in a condition in which any decision that they would be a party to would end up in the destruction or the extinction of a species. That is inconceivable to them.
The other thing is that they also have no difficulty with the other point that was made here, which was that the condition of these species is very much the canary in the mine. This is an early warning signal of what we are doing to nature at large.
The problem, I guess, is what to do with all of those existing entrenched interests that are exercising the levers of power today with their value systems and their educational backgrounds?
.1840
I guess one technique is to talk about the economics of this issue. Look at the full-value accounting of nature, rather than at the easy, highly discounted value we normally see represented by conventional accounting practices.
The Chairman: This brings us to a conclusion. While listening to the four of you in reply to Madam Kraft Sloan's question, I couldn't help recalling that some twelve years ago in this country unleaded gasoline was a rare item and leaded gasoline was the going item on the market. Governments thought at that time that a shift from one to the other would be impossible. You can see what has happened in actually a fairly short period of time. If it has been done with gasoline, then why can't it be done also with other products related to wildlife?
However, I'm beginning to sound a bit repetitive so we better quit and resume here at 7:30 p.m..
We thank you very much for your participation and input this afternoon. We hope we'll be able to look at a piece of legislation fairly soon as a result of your efforts and your good advice. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.