[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
.2002 
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening to you all. We are resuming our work for the evening. We are proceeding with our second day of hearings.
This is the forum on wildlife and on the status of wildlife in Canada. We've had two panels so far and tonight we are going to hear another panel, under the general heading of strategies and stewardship. This panel will deal with models, and possibly models of success.
We have four panellists tonight, beginning with Mr. Germaine, who is the acting chair of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. Welcome, Mr. Germaine. With him is Mr. Bob Whittam, executive director of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre. Welcome, Mr. Whittam.
Also with us is the famous and easily recognizable Kevin McNamee, the executive director,I suspect, of the Canadian Nature Federation, and
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Gagné, president of SARCEL, Société d'aménagement récréatif pour la conservation de l'environnement du lac Saint-Pierre.
[English]
Mr. Germaine, welcome again. The floor is yours.
Mr. Billy Germaine (Acting Chair, Porcupine Caribou Management Board): I'd like to start out by thanking the committee and the chair for the invitation.
I'd like to introduce myself. I'm from central Yukon. I'm the vice-chair of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. I've been on the board for about five years. It's a very interesting board.
The Chairman: Have you come to Ottawa by canoe?
Mr. Germaine: No, I haven't.
I'd like to talk a bit about the strategy and stewardship model of success.
I'd like to talk about the herd and its range. The first questions everyone asks when they hear about the Porcupine herd is why ``Porcupine''? Some people give us comments and ask whether these caribou are full of quills, or whether these are herds of porcupine. That's because of the lack of communication between Canadians and Americans and people in general.
.2005
The Porcupine caribou herd is named after the Porcupine River, which flows from the north Yukon into northeastern Alaska, where it meets the Yukon River at Fort Yukon. Each fall the Porcupine caribou herd crosses the Porcupine River on the Canadian side, as it travels southward towards its wintering range in the Yukon. Then, in the springtime, it recrosses the river on its way north to its calving grounds, which are the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and - to define them a little more closely - are also the ``1002'' lands. These are the ``1002'' lands on which Americans want to drill for oil. I'll talk about this a little bit more.
The Porcupine caribou herd is a population of 152,000 barren-ground caribou, whose range covers northeastern Alaska, north Yukon, and the Richardson Mountains west of the Mackenzie Delta, a geographical area that also encompasses the traditional territory of the Gwich'in, the Han, the Northern Tutchone, the Inuvialuit, and the Inupiat First Nation. Today these people live in fifteen communities on or near the caribou range where caribou are hunted year-round, and these communities depend on these caribou seasonally.
Stewardship past: Given that the caribou herd ranges across two nations, one state, two territories and the homeland of five first nations, effective conservation and management have always posed a problem. In the past, management of the Porcupine caribou was a disconnected collection of policies, regulations, and studies conducted by territorial, state and federal environmental agencies. For example, it was common in those days to see range maps for the caribou herds that ended at each jurisdiction's border, as if the rest of the world did not exist. Hunting regulations were also developed independently and there was no coordination of habitat protection.
As for native involvement in management, it was virtually non-existent. A typical situation was for the particular government department to design some caribou research, arrive in native communities without forewarning, do the fieldwork, prepare an in-service scientific report, and then make management decisions with little or no public consultation, let alone coordination with other jurisdictions.
In Canada, these problems were highlighted during the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearing in 1977, at which Chief Justice Tom Berger recommended that the co-management board be established for the Porcupine caribou herd. Still, it was not until 1985 that such an in-Canada agreement was signed by the two territorial governments, the federal government, and first nations organizations.
Stewardship present: The in-Canada Porcupine caribou management agreement was designed to overcome the chronic lack of communication and cooperation among biologists, bureaucrats, politicians and first nations and achieve a coordinated approach to Porcupine caribou conservation and management. Such documents are referred to as`` co-management'' agreements to emphasize the need for cooperation among all parties involved.
The co-management agreement provides for the creation of a co-management board, the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, made up of eight representatives from the territorial and federal governments, plus first nations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The board provides recommendations to appropriate territorial and federal ministers on management of the caribou herd in Canada. It was specifically charged with improving communications among all the stakeholders, plus encouraging a high level of community participation in decision-making.
The board has been operating constantly since 1986 and over the past nine years has made a number of significant achievements in key aspects of co-management. Several of these are as follows.
.2010
Consensus: The Porcupine Caribou Management Board has always had a a majority of native members, who could have dominated the board under the standard operating principles of majority rule. However, when the board was drafting its operating procedures native members recommended that the decisions be determined not by majority vote but by consensus, as it is first nations tradition. Consensus in this context means that no decisions are made until the concerns of all members have been adequately addressed, or, where that may not be possible, all members at least concur on a course of action, with acknowledgement that some acceptable compromises have been made.
The Porcupine Caribou Management Board has operated under consensus for the last nine years, and has found it to be a vastly superior approach to co-management. Under consensus, no member feels railroaded into decision-making, and although the process may be much slower for complex issues, the resulting recommendations have much stronger support within both the board and the communities using the caribou herd.
Communication: Since one of the primary mandates of the board was improving communications among all parties concerned with caribou management, the board undertook a study to determine what methods of communication worked best, particularly in user communities. Based on this study, the board has maintained a comprehensive communication program that includes video announcements, documentaries, bi-weekly radio bulletins, radio interviews, announcements, monthly news articles, community tours, posters, public meetings and summary reports.
In consequence, the northern public is better informed about Porcupine caribou issues than about practically any other environmental topic. As well, when specific problems arise, such as proposed oil development on the caribou calving grounds, the board has a variety of proven communication strategies for informing the public and governments about the significance of such actions to the Porcupine caribou herd.
Planning: Perhaps the greatest challenge for any management organization is to produce a comprehensive management plan. Moreover, the real test of such a plan is that it is workable and facilitates management, rather than collects dust on a shelf.
At the urging of both government and community representatives that the caribou management plan be both brief and action-oriented, the board produced the most unorthodox wildlife management plan in existence. Basically, the plan is organized around a picture, within which each figure represents an aspect of management that must be addressed. These components are further separated into specific annual projects for particular organizations that must report once a year to the board. Stick-on inserts are also mailed annually to the plan subscribers to keep them up to date on management progress and revisions.
The plan is based on the principle that the welfare of caribou is paramount and all human interests are secondary. This is illustrated in the plan picture and accompanying goals, which are for the caribou`` to be healthy and abundant with free use of traditional ranges'' and for the people ``to traditionally use and fully appreciate the caribou and their ranges''.
The format of this plan has proven so popular that it is now a template for other comprehensive plans, such as the North Slope conservation and management plan, and the Mayo integrated renewable resources big game management plan.
.2015
Habitat protection: In 1980 the United States Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This doubled the size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But section 1002 of the act deferred designation of the Arctic coastal plains of the refuge until the oil potential of this area was assessed by the United States Department of the Interior.
In 1987 the interior department stated there was a 20% chance of finding economically recoverable oil in the coastal plains - now called the 1002 lands - and that the major negative impact would be on the Porcupine caribou herd, which calved in the area. As the focus of management and conservation of the herd in Canada, the Porcupine Caribou Management Board immediately became involved in informing both the Canadian and United States governments about the devastating impacts a decline of the herd would have on native communities, which rely on the herd for economic and cultural survival.
In the past eight years the board has arranged for many native representatives to travel to Washington to testify at congressional hearings and visit congressional offices. As well, it enables user representatives to travel across the United States to inform the American public about Canadian concerns about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the caribou herd.
Earlier this year the board was successful in having the issue discussed at the Clinton-Chrétien summit, as well as in obtaining individual statements of support from Prime Minister Chrétien, Environment Minister Sheila Copps, and Foreign Affairs Minister André Ouellet.
In all of the board's 1002 activities, the role of native user representatives has remained paramount, because it is the aboriginal cultures of the caribou range that will suffer most if oil development is permitted on this core calving ground of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Presently the threat to this area is at its zenith, because of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and Alaskan delegates who chair congressional committees with jurisdiction over the issue. However, with the strong support of the Canadian government, the United States administration, and particularly the first nations in both Alaska and Canada, there is every reason to hope that the present crisis will be averted and ultimately the Arctic coastal plain, which is the biological heart of the entire ecoregion encompassing the Arctic National Refuge, plus Ivvavik Park and Vuntut National Park in Canada, will receive permanent wilderness designation.
In summary, the evolution of Porcupine caribou conservation and management from a disconnected jumble of government policies to a coordinated national and international system, with a high level of input from native user communities, is a true success story and valuable model for cooperative wildlife conservation and management anywhere on the globe.
The fundamental principles that make this stewardship work are sincere respect among users, bureaucrats and scientists; a blend of non-native and traditional approaches to decision-making; and a common goal of conserving a healthy caribou population on its traditional range for future generations.
The other point I would like to make is that I think man has a tendency to forget about the wildlife and their habitat and the nature around them, because men have always put economic development over and above wildlife and their habitats. I think we have to switch that back.
.2020
We can even see it in this building. When we look around us here today, everything around us - the car we drive, the clothes we wear - comes from Mother Earth, which is nature. As human beings, we are part of nature. That's something we cannot forget. We should always keep that in our minds. And don't forget, our children are part of it. That's something we shall never forget.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time, for having an open mind and an open heart in listening to what I have to say. I'd like to thank you for the invitation. I don't think I'm going anywhere andI don't think you're going anywhere. We're here to stay, and we have to achieve something for the generations to come for all of us.
The Chairman: We also thank you, Mr. Germaine, for having come such a distance to bring us your report, to bring us some good news on 1002 lands and the fact that the herd is doing well. I like very much, in your summary, the reference to the evolution of Porcupine caribou conservation and management ``from a disconnected jumble of government policies'' - I thought that was very well chosen - ``to a coordinated national and international system''.
We look forward to your participation this evening and to further questions. We find your presentation very reassuring. We are extremely happy you were able to make it.
Mr. Whittam, please.
Mr. Bob Whittam (Executive Director, Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to the forum under the strategies and stewardship section.
Twenty-five years ago, on June 5, 1970, the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre was officially opened by the Honourable Jean Chrétien. At that time, Mr. Chrétien was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and responsible for the Canadian Wildlife Service.
The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre was part of a plan formulated by CWS staff to establish a series of wildlife interpretation centres in each of our country's biotic regions. Each centre would tell a unique story about the people, wildlife and landscapes of the region, to increase appreciation of Canada by Canadians and by visitors travelling across our country.
The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre was the first of five established in the plan. Others were located at Percé, Quebec; Cap Tourmente, Quebec; Webb, Saskatchewan; and Creston, British Columbia. Unfortunately, the plan to interpret the ecological face of Canada from coast to coast was never completed. In November 1984 sweeping cutbacks to the Canadian Wildlife Service slashed many wildlife research programs and closed all of the interpretation centres at five locations and at many national wildlife areas. Abruptly abandoned, each centre had to design, autonomously, a plan for survival.
I'd like to tell you the story of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre this evening, which we hope can serve as an example of the struggles and success involved in privatization and community stewardship.
When the cuts were announced in 1984 the future looked bleak. Fortunately we had friends. The Friends of Wye Marsh had originally been formed as a cooperating association with the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1983. A non-profit company with registered charitable status, the Friends of Wye Marsh provided volunteer support and operated a small gift shop, which raised modest revenues to support the centre's programs.
When the crisis came in 1984, however, the Friends of Wye Marsh lobbied to keep the centre open, taking their message to conservation organizations, service clubs, school boards, tourism associations, municipal, provincial, and federal representatives, and the general public. Through their determination and hard work, support was generated and the Friends of Wye Marsh officially took over the operation of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre in April 1985, almost ten years ago today.
An agreement was negotiated that left ownership of the site with Environment Canada - that still exists today - but made the operation of the centre the responsibility of the Friends of Wye Marsh. The agreement provided a one-time grant and an interest-free loan from Environment Canada as bridge financing to allow the business to be developed. The agreement was for ten years. It's being renegotiated as we speak.
The Friends of Wye Marsh are administered by a board of directors representing various sectors of the community. Originally a group of a few hundred people, the Friends of Wye Marsh now represent more than 2,000 members and donors. A budget in excess of $1.4 million, most of which is raised privately, is now administered by the centre.
.2025
We provide year-round wildlife interpretation programs to more than 60,000 visitors annually, including more than 15,000 schoolchildren. It pleases me to hear all the comments about the importance of environmental education and the need for more of it.
We have nine full-time staff. More than twenty seasonal staff are employed by the Friends of Wye Marsh, and more than 500 community volunteers assist with fund-raising events, including festivals and fund-raising dinners. They also help with office work and facilities and public education programs.
We offer guided walks on wildlife themes, nature trails, marsh boardwalks, canoe excursions and a number of recreational activities.
Throughout the year special events raise funds and community awareness, but the major event of the year is a festival we hold in September, an environmental celebration. Held each September in the Wye Valley and through the Midland area, the Wye Marsh Festival is now in its tenth season. It started just after we lost government funding. The festival attracts 10,000 visitors to the area, providing economic and educational benefits to the community by expanding the tourist season into the fall.
The centre survived thanks to community partnerships and diverse marketing strategies. These strategies are important to share. As a former biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, I was thrust into a business management role for which I was ill-prepared. I often say that I left the Wildlife Service just as I joined it: fired with enthusiasm.
They don't train CWS biologists in business and marketing, but thanks to astute business people and community partners we learned quickly. If they can sell all those hamburgers through marketing, surely we can promote environmental awareness, wildlife conservation, and education through similar techniques.
Packaging wetland ecology was critical for our survival. One of our key partners was CKVR-TV from Barrie, just as an example. They helped to put Wye Marsh in the media spotlight and donated air time valued in excess of $150,000 per year over a five-year period.
Who cares about marshes anyway? Everyone does, if they are informed of their value. This partnership with CKVR-TV has been an enormous help to us in spreading the word.
The Wye Marsh has also ventured into new programs of importance to wildlife populations through innovative approaches to wildlife management, research and environmental planning. Since 1986 we have been involved in an exciting wildlife management program concerning the reintroduction of trumpeter swans. Trumpeter swans were once part of the avifauna in eastern Canada. Prior to European settlement, there is evidence of their breeding from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. The Wye Valley has the best archeological record of the species in eastern Canada, taken from the middens of the 17th century mission at Ste. Marie Among the Hurons.
However, trumpeter swans were vulnerable to hunting pressure and wetlands loss and they disappeared throughout much of the range as settlement advanced. They were an important component of our wetland communities, feeding mainly on aquatic vegetation by tipping in water about one metre deep. This filled the feeding niche between some of the puddle ducks and the diving ducks. Their extirpation in eastern Canada has reduced wetland biodiversity.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, whom you've heard from at this forum several times, lists trumpeter swans as one of approximately 237 species that are endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. Trumpeter swans are in the last category, as vulnerable.
In 1993 the first wild nesting of trumpeter swans in over 200 years occurred at Wye Marsh, where six wild cygnets were raised successfully. Again, these are the first wild trumpeter swans in southern Ontario in more than 200 years. Since then, the Wye Marsh swan program has released 24 birds and has a resident flock of 22 awaiting release. This is the good news.
The bad news is that the swan release program of Wye Marsh has had to be halted because over half of the released birds have died. They were poisoned by ingesting lead shot.
Trumpeter swans are an important symbol species for this terrible environmental problem. Thanks to the dedication of staff and volunteers at the Wye Marsh, the resident population of trumpeter swans has been monitored with great care, resulting in important data on poisoning from ingestion of spent lead shot.
The Wye Marsh provincial wildlife area has declared a non-toxic zone for waterfowl hunting under the hot spot policy for problem areas designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Our data shows that this hot spot approach to wildlife toxicology problems does not work and that a provincial and indeed a federal ban is required to complement current regulations in the United States.
.2030
A recent announcement that British Columbia has banned lead for waterfowl hunting in 1995 is good news as well. B.C.'s initiative must be followed by Ontario and Canada if we are to begin to remediate the problem of waterfowl poisoning and begin the reintroduction of species such as the vulnerable trumpeter swan.
The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre, with financial assistance from Scott Paper Limited's ``Save the Trumpeter Swan'' fund and the Great Lakes cleanup fund, is conducting research into lead poisoning and remediation of the problem by making lead unavailable to waterfowl once it has been banned. Because lead shot in wetlands remains available to waterfowl indefinitely, this research is of great importance to wildlife managers. The first and most important step is to make sure we legislate the use of non-toxic shot throughout Canada.
The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre is also part of the international effort to restore environmental health to the Great Lakes basin. We serve as the public involvement facilitator for the Severn Sound remedial action plan, the RAP, a water quality restoration initiative of the governments of Canada and Ontario. Through our involvement with the Severn Sound RAP, we have participated in fish and wildlife habitat restoration, pollution control projects, water quality research and wildlife population studies.
The RAP process serves as an example of successful partnerships in our area. In the Severn Sound area of concern, the federal government is an active partner, working with the provincial and municipal governments as well as with individuals and community groups such as the Friends of Wye Marsh. In our partnership with the Severn Sound RAP, one of our goals is to support and enhance public awareness of environmental issues, so that a legacy of wise stewardship can be sustained by an informed and motivated community.
I might suggest that it's a long way to have evolved. We are proud of our new ventures into wildlife management, research and environmental planning. We are also proud to be part of the international Great Lakes basin cleanup. We are especially proud of the educational programs and services we offer the public, especially to young people. Today the wetland, the Wye Marsh, is treasured by our community because of its benefit as a natural resource, an economic resource, an education centre and a major partner in the tourism industry.
The mission of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre is to provide and promote awareness, education, appreciation and enjoyment of science, wildlife and wetlands. It's a tall order and it hasn't been easy, nor would it be wise, I might to suggest to you all, to use the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre as a national example for all provincial and federal cooperating associations.
While ingenuity, entrepreneurial zip and hard work have sustained the Wye Marsh, the centre continues to struggle for self-sufficiency. We are unable to afford major capital renovations and non-routine maintenance and we continue to depend on the extraordinary commitment of our staff and volunteers to keep operating - as do many NGOs these days.
Forging true partnerships between the public and private sectors requires careful consultation, compromise and cooperation. Simply to close the public operation without negotiation with the private sector does not make for an efficient transition. Should Point Pelee National Park be operated by the Friends of Point Pelee, or Algonquin Provincial Park by Friends of Algonquin? This expectation is simply unrealistic. This is what was expected of the Friends of Wye Marsh when the centre's funding was cut off.
The hasty cutbacks to the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1984, and more recently this spring, have left gaps not easily filled by the private sector. The decision to involve the private sector is not in question, but how we make the decision is critical. A partnership should be carefully planned, not imposed in the spirit of ``sink or swim''.
If we help each other to clarify public-private partnerships, then environmental non-government organizations such as the Friends of Wye Marsh can help to reduce government expenditures.
It is estimated that during the past ten years the Friends of Wye Marsh have saved the government in excess of $3 million through a businesslike approach to wildlife conservation and education programs. That's a conservative estimate. The real figure is probably in excess of$5 million. However, the Wye Marsh model must be applied judiciously. Don't cut and slash and then expect the private sector to jump in. Work together to plan the transition. It takes time, preparation and education to foster a sense of stewardship.
Stewards may be defined as those entrusted to manage property on behalf of an owner. We do not own our wetlands or their wildlife populations; we are their stewards. It has often been said that we borrow our world from our children. Our goal is to hand it on to them in better shape than we found it. To be good stewards, we must understand the value of the lands entrusted to our care.
Canada has stewardship of more than 127 million hectares of wetlands, one-quarter of the world's wetlands. They are a key life support system for the planet, not only as habitats for endangered wildlife but as a vital part of global ecosystems and economies. Ecologically, as you all know, they serve as water recharge systems, as well as for shoreline protection and flood control.
.2035
Wetlands are refuges for fur-bearers, fish, reptiles, amphibians and myriads of invertebrates and plants, preserving species biodiversity as nature's nurseries. As natural sinks for pollutants, wetlands serve as nature's kidneys, purifying water.
From a socio-economic viewpoint, wetlands are important for hunting, trapping and fishing industries. They provide an attraction for tourism and recreational activities such as bird-watching. They are a source of forest and agricultural products. Wetlands are rich resource habitats for scientific research and education programs such as ours at Wye Marsh. As natural heritage areas, I'm told their value exceeds $10 billion annually in Canada. Simply keeping wetlands wet is all that it takes.
Yet despite their economic and ecological importance, we continue to lose and degrade wetlands in Canada. We have lost 65% of Atlantic coastal salt marshes, up to 98% of wetlands within urban areas, at least 68% of wetlands in southern Ontario, 50% of the potholes in the central prairies, and 70% of the Pacific estuary marshes. These facts are taken from ``The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation'', which was released by the federal government in 1992 - at Wye Marsh, I might add.
You must support this policy's goal for no net loss of wetland functions and its key strategy of developing national public awareness programs on wetlands in cooperation with non-government organizations and the private sector, such as the Friends of Wye Marsh.
Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on our conservation education and wildlife management work at the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre. We have worked hard to maintain a major wetland community and to provide public awareness and education programs about the importance of wildlife and wetlands. We are proud of our achievements and proud to be seen as an example of successful strategies and stewardship. However, the Wye Marsh example shows that delegation - not abrogation - of responsibilities in the name of partnership works best.
In sharing our experience with other Canadians, do not forget the federal responsibility to maintain healthy wetland communities and their wildlife populations in cooperation with the provinces, the private sector and non-government organizations. Your support is necessary for the Canadian Wildlife Service, the federal stewards of wildlife and wetlands. Your continued support is vital for remedial action plan programs under the Canada-Ontario agreement. Your support is also urgently required for wildlife research for endangered or extirpated species such as the trumpeter swan and wildlife policy initiatives to ban lead shot. The federal government must renew its commitment to stewardship of our natural environment and its support of public awareness and education programs, so a sense of stewardship can be passed on to succeeding generations.
I thank you very much for your time.
The Chairman: We thank you, Mr. Whittam; and thank you for reminding us of the losses that have occurred so far in the Atlantic and in southern Ontario, in the prairies and in the Pacific marshes.
You are quite right that we have to support the goal of no net loss of wetland functions. It's good to remind us of the federal responsibility to maintain, as you put it, healthy wetland communities and their wildlife populations in cooperation with the provinces, the private sector and NGOs. These are very timely words and we will certainly remember them.
Thank you again.
Mr. McNamee, would you like to start, please?
Mr. Kevin McNamee (Director, Wild Lands Program, Canadian Nature Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. Good evening. I too would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this evening on the topic of strategies and stewardship - models of success in the protection of wildlife and wilderness.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to you for taking time to review this topic. It's very timely.
Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that in 1995 we are celebrating two important centennials. One is the centennial of the Quebec provincial parks system, established in 1895.
It's also the centennial of Waterton Lakes National Park, in southern Alberta. The interesting point about Waterton is that when the government was interested in establishing it as a national park, some civil servants said, well, Mr. Minister, we already have three national parks, in Banff, in Glacier and in Yoho; we don't need any more. Fortunately, the minister of the day said forget it, let's establish this national park and posterity will bless us.
Indeed, Waterton was established as a national park in 1895. It's a very important wildlife refuge for grizzly bears today. It's a very important international peace park. It's also a place where citizens and ranchers are working to protect this area cooperatively. It's one of the most impressive jewels in our national park system. It first came about because local people recognized they might be losing the land.
.2040
In essence, we've had examples of stewardship and protection of wildlife through parks for over a century in this country.
I am the wildlands campaign director for the Canadian Nature Federation. I'm also the federal endangered spaces coordinator for World Wildlife Fund. My focus is on the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000. I've worked on protected area issues and wildlife issues for the last twelve years. I've been involved in many wilderness issues, including South Moresby, Tatsenshini, Grasslands, Wood Buffalo.
I'd like to declare at the outset that I have a bias in my presentation and in my feelings towards the wilderness in Canada, and that is that we need to protect large areas. There are many other successes in terms of protecting private land by Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the establishment of land trusts, people protecting private land. I would like to focus on protection of large wilderness areas.
Over the last twelve years, as a national parks advocate, a user of national and provincial parks, as a person who taught at Trent University for a couple of terms, I have met many Canadians across the country who love their wilderness, love their wildlife, love their parks. They look to governments for leadership in doing more, and they themselves want to contribute their time and their money to this job.
Protected areas are a central, not the only, component in protecting wildlife and wilderness in Canada. More and more, science is telling us that as we develop the lower valley bottoms in important places we are incringing on the habitat for grizzly bears, wolves and caribou. These wildlife species need lands that are undeveloped. When I talk about protected areas, I'm talking about protected areas where there's no logging, no mining, no oil or gas exploration, no other activities to be judged later on.
I point out that governments, both federal and provincial, industry and ranchers have finally come together on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rockies to work to see how Banff National Park, other protected areas, and private land can be managed cooperatively to protect the disappearing habitat of the grizzly bear.
I think it's important to recognize in Canada that there are no laws that compel politicians to protect what wilderness we have left or to establish more parks. It is public support and political will only and ultimately that deliver new protected areas. So as politicians in the Canadian Parliament, you have a very important role to play here.
We have an economic, cultural and legal system that still does not inherently recognize the need simply to leave wildlife in some wilderness areas alone. We have to fight for every scrap. That is why after a hundred years of creating protected areas, only 5.2% of Canada is legally protected as wilderness and over 60% has been developed or will be allocated to development. That is why we are losing one square kilometre of wilderness an hour.
Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to acknowledge the long-time contribution of the Canadian Wildlife Service and Parks Canada to Canada's conservation programs. Parks Canada is the first national park service established in the world. I feel right now, under government reorganization, both of these prestigous agencies are slowly disappearing.
You may have heard in other presentations about the need for Canada to protect and complete a network of protected areas across Canada by the year 2000. The map I have up on the screen shows the 424 specific natural regions Canada is divided into. These are natural regions that have been defined by governments themselves. The goal is to represent each one of those 424 natural regions fully with a protected area.
.2045
World Wildlife Fund launched a campaign in 1989 - a ten-year campaign - to get governments to complete this job by the year 2000. In fact, all we did was bring a deadline to a job that governments across Canada defined back in the 1970s. So this is not news, but we have brought a political deadline to the goal.
Governments have bought into this goal. In 1992 all of Canada's ministers of environment, parks and wildlife signed the tri-council statement in Aylmer, Quebec, which committed the thirteen senior governments to do this job by the year 2000.
To date, of those 424 natural regions, 5% are fully represented, 45% are moderately or partially represented, and 55% have little or no representation. It is to that 55% we must turn our attention in the coming years.
I commended the Canadian Wildlife Service earlier, not just because they're a good agency but because one of the gentlemen from the Wildlife Service is doing my overheads, and I need his support.
Mr. Chairman, it's important to point out that in the Liberal red book there was a commitment by the Liberal government to work cooperatively with provinces, territorial governments and aboriginal people to accomplish the goal of representing the natural regions on that earlier map by the year 2000. Please note the words ``work cooperatively''.
The question is how is this going to be done. To date, we have not seen a strategy emerge from the federal government as to how this job can be done. Completing the national parks system is clearly an important step, but we need to look at some other cooperative approaches. How can we manage national parks and provincial parklands cooperatively? We don't need two government agencies managing the same plot. Perhaps Parks Canada can share some of its resources with some of the provincial governments.
We need changes to the federal Income Tax Act so that Canadians can contribute land to conservation without being hit with a capital gains tax. The 1995 federal budget had a step here to help, but we need to go further.
In some sectors of Canada, native people are looking for some support to help them train to learn how to administer and manage territorial or provincial parks that native people are involved with. Perhaps we should look at Department of National Defence lands if they're going to be surplus.
A very important success story in Alberta was when the Suffield military base declared part of their lands as a national wildlife area. Indeed, on the prairies it is the Department of National Defence that contains or holds onto some of our precious disappearing prairie grasslands.
How about some examples of success? You're used to hearing about all our failures and conflicts in the media. In British Columbia, the Kitlope Valley was set aside by the Haisla Nation, a forest company gave up $12 million worth of old-growth timber, and now we have the largest temperate rain forest protected in Canada.
In 1989 the people of Paulatuk identified protection of the Bluenose caribou herd as very central to their way of life and to their economy in the Northwest Territories, and they called on Parks Canada to start working with them to establish a national park.
On northern Baffin Island a native community has identified the protection of the bowhead whale as a very important step for them. So they are now working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada to establish the Igalirtuuq National Wildlife Area.Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wise if Minister Sheila Copps were onside for this and could help deliver this when the time is right.
In Ontario you had the recent extension of the Wabakimi Provincial Wilderness Park to over one million hectares because again government, industry, conservationists and aboriginal people sat down to resolve the issues.
.2050
I can go on and on. There are examples of companies giving up their mineral and oil and gas leases for Vuntut National Park.
Why does this cooperation happen? First of all, one reason is - and I think you should reflect on this - the government has established clear goals for protected areas. The government has said to Canadians we need to represent natural regions and protect critical wildlife habitat. Second, people themselves are recognizing the need to take action. Third, people recognize that government has the legal tools to do the job. Fourth, at times government supports the need for people to get together. Fifth, people don't always want to engage in conflicts. Sixth, industry wants to see governments get on with the job of designating protected areas, so they have some certainty as to which lands are open and which are not.
For the sake of time, I'm going to skip through a couple of points here and not go to my overheads any further. I'll submit further comments to you in writing.
There are a couple of things I wanted to point out. The Northern Buffalo Management Board was a board established temporarily two years ago to examine the government's proposed kill of buffalo in Wood Buffalo National Park. For over a year people met to examine this issue, and they submitted a report to government two years ago. We have not had a response.
My point to you, Mr. Chairman, is that if governments are going to bring people together to work in cooperation to resolve conservation issues, the people are owed a response by the government.
My second point is that Parks Canada recently tabled in the House a report on the state of the parks. I would suggest that either this committee or the Canadian heritage committee may want to have some hearings to reflect on this report and how well we are doing in protecting our national parks and completing the national parks system.
My third point is that there are two national parks where land acquisition programs have not been funded. Commitments were made to Canadians for the completion of Grasslands and Bruce Peninsula National Parks. Yet Grasslands remains half-completed. The Canadian Nature Federation and the Nature Conservancy have raised $80,000 to help purchase land, but for the last four budgets there's been no money. We are losing important prairie habitat, and I need not remind you that the burrowing owl, which is found there, has been upgraded to endangered. And there is land for sale in the Bruce Peninsula today.
My point, Mr. Chairman, is that if government can no longer fund the acquisition of private land for these two national parks, then please tell us. Say so, and we can examine other strategies to protect land. Let's not just let these lands slide into oblivion.
Finally, I would call on this committee to assist us in clarifying the state of the Green Plan. Canadians put a lot of time into the development of this document. A group of eight national conservation groups representing over one million Canadians was in fact very supportive of this document. We found some of its provisions for wildlife very supportive. But with recent statements that the Green Plan is dead, we're confused. What is the government's policy on the environment and wildlife?
We've had dramatic cuts to Environment Canada. The status of the Green Plan is unclear. We have a harmonization exercise going on where we're not sure what is being done with wildlife areas.
It is as I said to the Liberal Party before the election, and just the day after the Green Plan was released, if you're going to eliminate the Green Plan, then you have to come back to Canadians and tell us what the government's comprehensive environmental agenda is.
To conclude, I too want to support the need for this committee to support protection of the ``1002'' lands in northern Yukon. I urge you to visit Congress. I urge you to visit with the Republicans, who this fall may move to open up part of this ecosystem to oil and gas development. It is very important that the Canadian Parliament tell the Americans we have a very important model of success here. We've put a lot of effort, time and money into the protection of Ivvavik and Vuntut National Park on our side of this international ecosystem. We must save that land. If there's one thing you can do, please tell Congress not to open it up.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McNamee. Thank you in particular for the pointed questions you asked, which we will certainly examine. We will see to it that they receive an adequate reply, particularly the last one you asked - namely, what the government's comprehensive environmental agenda is. We'll certainly make sure that question is registered where it has to be registered.
.2055
In the meantime, I call on the president of SARCEL, Mr. Louis Gagné, to make his presentation now.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Gagné (President, Société d'aménagement récréatif pour la conservation de l'environnement du lac Saint-Pierre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, guests, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I shall be as brief as possible. I would like to thank the organizing committee for inviting a small association such as ours to participate in the prestigious work of this committee. We must keep in mind future grants.
We work primarily in the region of the Baie-du-Febvre. This area, which is located alongside Saint-Pierre Lake, exactly half-way between Montreal and Quebec City, is not very well-known despite the fact that it is the largest staging area on the St. Lawrence. At this time of the year, that is during the month of April, there may be as many as 350,000 wild birds there: wild geese, Canada geese and ducks.
In the spring, there is flooding from the lake, and 7,000 hectares of land are submerged. The land concerned is primarily agricultural, with some wooded areas and prairies. This year there has not yet been any flooding. It is the first time that this has happened. Older people will tell you that they have never seen this and that their parents told them that it had never happened. You may perhaps see what is happening in this area. I am told that the Great Lakes have been closed off for quite some time through the building of damns on the Ottawa River. These are usually the two waterways which cause flooding in our area in the spring time. Both as regards flooding and weather conditions, the situation has been exceptional this year.
Normally, birds use the food plain for two reasons. First, to rest because the water levels allow the birds to spend the night there and carry out certain activities; second, it is a good feeding area because it is largely made up of cultivated land. However, during the day, the geese go elsewhere. They can travel from 50 to 80 km to obtain food and they come back at night fall. As I explained, there has not been any flooding this year, except in the land which belongs to us and which was developped. I would like to explain to you how this situation came about.
The flood plain is used as a spawning ground by approximately 19 species of softwater fish in Saint-Pierre Lake. Since it is not very deep, the water warms up far more quickly.
In the early 1980s a group of farmers from the region, encouraged by the policy of food self-sufficiency promoted by the government at the time and by the current government, encouraged farmers to grow far more corn, as well as other products. The land in question was used every year whenever the flood situation allowed. If the flooding finished early, they tried to cultivate the land. If the flooding lasted under mid-May, it was too late for seeding. In that case, they waited until the following year. Their reaction was the following: ``We have to produce corn; it is useful and profitable. We will try to use that land again. We will build damns to prevent flooding. We will install pumping stations, etc.''
Their first efforts were rather timid, since they did not build a real damn. They dug a big ditch and placed earth alongside it. It was not water-tight, but it was sufficient to slow down the flow of water. They also installed pumping stations at each end.
.2100
The Department of Agriculture encouraged them, but the Department of Recreation, Fish and Game, which is today called the Department of the Environment and Wildlife, said: ``Wait, there is a lot of fish in that area and if you begin to cut it off and pump out water, we will have to intervene and you will be faced with serious problems.''
Therefore, the Department of Agriculture was telling them to go ahead, whereas the Department of the Environment and Wildlife was giving them the opposite advice. In the end, they decided to go ahead and the inevitable happened. One morning, officers from the Wildlife Department came to seize tractors, pumps and other equipment. The mayor of the village was one of the people affected, and a great row broke out in the region, and there were prosecutions under the Fisheries Act.
That was in 1984. Our group was made up of people from the region and not from the village of Baie-du-Febvre, which handicapped us somewhat. There was the problem of building damns and of tractors being seized which I mentioned to you, but we also decided to intervene in the region. We wondered where these birds, which stopped in our region in the spring, came from. Therefore, we went to look at winter ranges on the eastcoast of the United States. We wanted to know how it was that the Americans have had bird sanctuaries for 50 or 60 years. We invited them in the spring and we were told that this is the most important time of year because it is then that the birds build up their reserves of fat and proteins before going to nest. That is an important point, they spend the winter there and they can fly wherever they wish because in the United States there is corn everywhere.
When they leave our region, they have been fattened up. They have become boulimic and eat constantly. Therefore, the staging area is perhaps more important than ... At that time, absolutely nothing had been done and, moreover, the building of damns posed a serious threat because it might have prevented migratory birds from using the flood plain.
We met in order to set up an association to try to intervene, but not agressively. A meeting was organized by the Chamber of Commerce of the region in order to examine possibilities for developping tourism.
Obviously, the first thing that was discussed was the story of the mayor of Baie-du-Febvre. Everyone was aware of what had happened, because it had been in the newspapers. ``Why was your tractor seized?'' ``Yes, it is because of the birds and fish. We do not need that. We want to cultivate the land and they come and seize our tractors. It does not make any sense.''
They then told the mayor. ``Perhaps it does not make any sense, but we still have to think about the others.'' The mayor answered: ``Next Monday, there will be a meeting of 40 farmers. From now on, not one single hunter will come on to our land. This land belongs to us and we want to cultivate it.'' He was then asked if we could attend that meeting so as to make proposals. He told us: ``No problem.''
Therefore, on the Monday we turned up at the meeting. The atmosphere in the room was quite heated. We were going to propose to them that hunting on this land should be controlled because we had heard that there were problems. Everyone told us about unfortunate incidents. Hunters had dug blinds on the land, which the farmers did not see. They drove into them with their tractors and equipment was broken. One farmer was shot at, and another had his windows broken. The hunters went too far. Therefore, the reaction was: ``That is it. It is we ourselves and not the government who will decide what we can do.''
We answered: ``That is all well and good, but what are you going to do in the morning? The hunters arrive early on the land; they come at about the time you are milking the cows.'' A farmer answered: ``I will see to it and I will get them out later.'' However, by that time the hunter will have shot his limit of birds and left. So we said: ``We are going to go and warn the hunters. We are going to do your job and also make money as a result, and we will give you half of the profits.'' Almost everyone burst out laughing. They answered: ``You will never make money with that. The ducks and hunters cause us enormous problems. If you want to come and get them out this morning, go ahead.'' We had them sign a small contract. It took two or three meetings to convince them, but finally most of them agreed that it made sense. They realized that they could not do it themselves.
.2105
Therefore, on the morning of the opening of the hunting season, we turned up. We were there at about 4 a.m. I can tell you I have had my share of hunters. I am absolutely sure that nobody in Canada has received more death threats than I. Over the first four or five years, I encountered hundreds of them with their rifles. It was a serious business.
Obviously, in some cases, we had to intervene with the QPP, and the problem was dealt with. It was just a matter of taking action against a few people. Some didn't appreicate that. We had a small trailer where we could talk to the hunters, and it proved to be a target for a few weeks. It was shot at but, fortunately, there was no one in sight. So you can appreciate what the atmosphere was like.
The legal proceedings concerning the seizure of tractors was delayed for various reasons. There were various other proceedings. We stayed with them and the hunting went on. At the end of the first season, we called them and said: ``There is a meeting at a certain time and place, and we have a small cheque for you. We have made money. We ask the hunters to pay in order to hunt on your land. This money is used to pay our costs, but we have a small amount to distribute to you.'' They all came. Not one failed to turn up. It was not a large cheque, but it was still a cheque. We said: ``There is money to be made with that.'' They say: ``We always thought...'' We said to them: ``We did not make a lot of money this year because we had substantial expenses. We had to buy lines, etc.''
For the first few years this was done on a volunteer basis. I got up at 4 a.m. to meet the hunters. Then I went to court, because I am a lawyer. I spent the day in court and I would return in the evening to see the hunters who were coming back. I did that for several years.
One morning someone arrived and said: ``We have a big problem. One department says yes and another says no. We are at a stand-still. There are elections coming and we are told that the situation will be worse after the elections. You seem to be familiar with the situation. You are making money with that. We always thought that no money could be made. Would it be possible to do something else.'' We answered: ``Yes, something else can be done. We are going to develop the area. We will do exactly the oppositive of what you wanted to do. We will add water instead of taking it out.''
So that was the start of another project. There were mistakes and that kind of thing. We decided to hold a meeting to explain the situation. Judging from that meeting, I would say that things looked pretty discouraging. But it was not serious. We went on working and changed the project. There were meetings after meetings. We have a producers' union, the UPA. There were meetings with the UPA, with farmers, etc. Obviously, when you meet farmers, you must also meet their wives. Sometimes, you have to start all over again because the wife was not at home when you were there. Or she was there and doing the dishes. If she rubs on one side of the plate, that means yes, but if she rubs on the other side it means no. Or at some point you may hear plates being banged together. You then start to wonder whether you are talking to the owner or someone else. Sometimes you have to start all over again because someone passes behind you and says: ``What he is saying is not true. They don't have any money. They never do anything.'' So at one point I decided: ``I've got it. I'm going to organize a meeting with all the women.'' They have an association, the Cercle des fermières. I spoke to them all at the same time. Things moved along far more quickly. I went to a meeing of the Cercle des fermières and explained the plan to them. My baby daughter had just been born. At the next meeting, I received 42 pairs of knitted slippers!
[Technical Difficulty] You realize that when someone talks the other person listens. There were five years of negotiations, every evening and weekend. All that was volunteer work. First one person was signed on, then another and then another etc. Today, they have almost all signed on, with one exception, but the plan has been carried out in cooperation with other owners.
At the present time, an amount of 2.7 million dollars has been invested in our project, and this includes the purchase and development of the land. As I said, water is being added where they wanted to remove it. This is done on May 6th in some areas and May 8th in others. The water is removed with a pumping system, the land is placed under cultivation and leased back to the former owner. The later benefits in two ways. He has been compensated financially and he can continue to cultivate his land.
.2110
Obviously, there are limits on the type of crop you can grow, because you do not want them to be cultivating just anything. To date, we have not received too many complaints in that regard.
The development of the staging area has attracted many visitors because the number of birds using it has increased incredibly. We receive about 50,000 visitors every year, most of whom come during the month of April. I am here this evening, but I will certainly be at the area tomorrow. That is why I did not prepare a conference summary. We have visitors from all around the world. Yesterday we had a group from France. During the weekend, we had a group from Germany. Foreign tourism is beginning. The staging area in the Baie-du-Febvre is recognized internationally.
It is not always easy to receive visitors. During the early years, farmers would call me and say: ``There are cars parked in my driveway, belonging to your visitors. Can you tell them to go away?'' I would leave my house, go to the field and ask the person concerned: ``Could you please move your vehicle? The farmer would like to get out in order to go to mass.'' The visitor would apologize. I do not have those problems any longer. The farmer is very happy when people park there. He said: ``There was one person from Sherbrooke, and another from Sept-Îles, and it is very interesting.''
At the time, the mayor had his tractor seized. Today, the municipality has invested $150,000 to build a nature interpretation centre. There are only 1,000 people living in the municipality. There was a public collection one Sunday afternoon after mass, and $25,000 was collected in just one day. That was from a village with a population of just 1,000.
Obviously, there has been a lot of work involved. The time we live in has helped us. There has been a change in the attitude of the people living in the village and the farmers. It is estimated that economic spinoffs today come to at least two million dollars a year.
I would like to mention the names of the partners involved in the project. They are: the PCHE ``Joint Plan for People Living in Eastern Quebec'', the Quebec Department of the Environment and Wildlife, the Quebec Wildlife Foundation, Wildlife Habitat Canada, The Canadian Wildlife Service and the Secretariat for Regional Affairs. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gagné, for such a clear account of your experience working in this region. We will begin immediately a five-minute round of questions. Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Gagné, on my own behalf and on behalf of the interpreters, I would like to thank you. You spoke about your partners in your development plan. First, I would like to congratulate you for your success for implementing this plan, but I did not hear about the St. Lawrence Action Plan. Did you try to work with phases I and II of the St. Lawrence Action Plan? Did it work successfully?
Mr. Gagné: Obviously, I mentioned the partners because this plan has from the beginning been part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. At that time, money was already being received from the Canadian Wildlife Service. The plan began in 1984. Initially, the only partners were Wildlife Habitat Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan joined later. The plan was then integrated. There were negotiations, not only with the owners but also between the partners. Given that this is the first project in Eastern Quebec, we wanted to know what the Americans were paying as part of the North American Plan, etc. We had many from the St. Lawrence Action Plan but not for the purchase or development of land. We received grants for the management and supervision of the site.
In the spring, we have a problem with the birds being disturbed by users. Ofter visitors come and see 100,000 snow geese in a field, they run after the geese and think they can touch them or pick them up. That is where the money comes from.
.2115
However, there may have been money given by the Canadian Wildlife Service at the time, which came from the St. Lawrence Action Plan. I myself did not make any applications to theSt. Lawrence Action Plan. Perhaps one of the partners might have dealt with that.
It was advantageous for us to have a large number of partners. Under these programs, one would apply to another for money to go ahead with the project. If we ourselves had had to find the two million dollars received in subsidies, we would not have had the time to negotiate with the owners on how the money was to be spent.
Mr. Sauvageau: You are a private group which, in relatively little time, that is 10 years, has achieved the objectives you described to us. In your view, how should the government and the private sector address such a specific issue in the area of wildlife?
Mr. Gagné: In my view, the government could not have addressed the problem as we did, for the simple reason that it was the government which caused the conflict. Two government departments were in disagreement. From my meeting with the farmers, I think that if I had been a government representative I would have been told to leave far more quickly.
When they saw that we were a local private group, that we were close to them and always there - They only had to call us and the next day we were there, they saw me every evening visiting one or other of the farmers. At some point they realized that we were able to deal with this issue.
I am not saying that in other circumstances the government would not be able to achieve similar results. I am currently negotiating other purchases. When people know that it is government money, they immediately think about increasing the price and demanding different terms.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you Mr. Gagné. One last question for Mr. Germaine. On page 2 of your brief, and this reminds me a little bit of the brief we saw yesterday which caused me to smile once or twice, you say that researchers from the Department arrived without notification in order to carry out on site work, namely an internal ``scientific'' report.
The word ``scientific'' is no doubt used deliberately. Are you suggesting that, scientifically, it is difficult to conduct research? By placing the remark between brackets, are you calling into question the results of this research?
I am sorry. There is one thing I want to add. Yesterday, we were told that over a period of 10 years, there was a 34% increase in wildlife activity. It was never explained what these activities were. Perhaps that is what is scientifically doubtful.
[English]
Mr. Germaine: On your first question, about putting the word ``scientific'' in brackets, in the past there were always biologists, scientists, and reporters - you name it - who came up to the native communities to do some kind of scientific research and do great big binders of reports. They make it so academic, and put it in words that are so academic the academic people are the only ones who can understand it. When they give it to the first nations people or the community people in general, they can't understand it, or it's too thick to read, so it gets put on the shelf and it collects dust.
That's why our management plan was a good example. For our management plan, the board members have said if we're going to develop a management plan, we have to do it where our younger people, our younger generations in the schools, understand it through the pictures, as well as the elders at home who can't speak English, or read or write. That's one of the reasons we learned from all these other reports and management plans, developed by scientists and researchers and you name it. We learned from that.
I'm sure we're going to learn from this management plan as well, because it's so simple. It's so easy to understand. It gives the goals and objectives. It gives every one of the members who sit on the board actions and action items to do. So it doesn't let them off the hook.
.2120
When you're representing somebody, or a government, or an agency, you should be representing them as though you're there to represent them. That's one of the reasons we developed this; and it's a good product. It's a good template for all the other boards, councils, and committees that are coming out of the Yukon land claims. They're looking at this management plan and they're saying it's a good one. We're going to use that as a template to develop our own management plan.
Back at home I sit on various boards, councils and committees representing Na'cho Nyak Dun, which is our first nation, and also representing other first nations on boards, councils and committees. A management plan to manage human beings is the first thing they're looking at - not to manage wildlife, but to manage our people and to manage the encroachment of man. That's what you're supposed to be managing. That's what this whole management plan does. It doesn't manage the caribou. The caribou manage themselves and nature helps that. This management plan is to manage the encroachment of humans. Basically, we just have to get people to understand that.
The Chairman: You are certainly to be congratulated, Mr. Germaine, for this plan. It is extremely well done.
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Gentlemen, thank you all very much. I think you know, as far as we're concerned, it's the evening of the second day, and it's been great listening to you because there are some practical ideas and some positive ideas here. If I can get to each of you in my five minutes - I probably can't.
First of all, because this is on the record, Mr. Germaine, if I might, I would like to say to any school person who reads or watches these hearings that they should contact you and your board for a copy of this management plan. So should all groups like the ones represented here and so on, from an educational point of view. Again, for the people who read or hear or see this, it's the management plan for the Porcupine caribou herd in Canada, 1993-94 to 1995-96, produced by the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. It is a wonderful thing. For example, it ties the pictures of the animals into comments, conditions, management points, biology and so on. I'm just saying that for the record.
I was intrigued, because Mr. McNamee mentioned Waterton, that the one feature I had not thought about is that Waterton's a peace park. Yours crosses an international border, as you said. You said two countries, one state, two territories. In the human sense, that has extraordinary implications in itself, hasn't it? I think it's marvellous.
Mr. Germaine, I wonder if I could ask you about a couple of things. Since your board was established, the Dempster Highway has developed a lot. Would you care to comment on that and how your board has handled it? That's one question.
The second is, I think you know that in Canada at the moment there's a very considerable controversy about game management. I don't know where the Mackenzie Valley reindeer herd is with respect to your territory here, but I wonder what the thoughts of your board are about the existing reindeer herd in the Mackenzie Valley. So that was the Dempster Highway and the reindeer herd.
Mr. Germaine: On the first question, on the Dempster Highway, we had a board meeting about three weeks ago in Fort McPherson and the Dempster Highway was one of the topics of that management board meeting. We were getting letters and different comments about how we were going to control the Dempster Highway when the Porcupine caribou cross at a certain time of the year, in terms of hunting, in terms of encroachment of skidoos, in terms of encroachment of four-wheelers.
.2125
The board is recommending to the Minister of Renewable Resources in the Yukon that we put a corridor on each side of the highway. I believe it's a one-kilometre corridor covering the whole highway at a certain point in time when the caribou come around. At a certain point of the month they come over into the wintering range and then cross back over during the springtime. Those corridors would be flexible. After the caribou cross over, the corridors would be opened up.
The other corridor we're looking at is a public safety corridor, where people don't shoot on a highway, across the highway, or from the highway. That corridor stays on the highway year-round. It applies to everyone, including native people.
I'm not very familiar with the game management of reindeer. I'm familiar with the Bluenose herd in the Northwest Territories. I'm familiar with them and I can tell you, from my point of view, they taste a lot different from the Porcupine caribou.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment.
You mentioned going to Congress. You should know that soon after the Republican majorities were established this committee did go to Congress, but I don't think we discussed the Porcupine herd. I think we should have. We went very deliberately to try to establish some relations and some understanding about the changing views of the environment there.
Am I okay for time, Mr. Chair?
The Chairman: Your time is up.
I want to assure you that this committee was involved in urging the Prime Minister to include a reference to the Porcupine herd at a meeting with Mr. Clinton. And we're glad to see that did happen.
Ms Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Germaine, I apologize for coming in late during your presentation. I have students here with the Canadian Youth Forum.
I have to agree with you. I applaud your way of looking at it. We are managing human interference, and certainly our natural, non-human nature can take care of itself very well, thank you very much.
I have a comment about the Wye Marsh. We've been talking about public education as one theme in this forum. I think when you have that opportunity to go first-hand into a natural setting, it's the best type of public education. I had the great pleasure of taking a cub troop through the Wye Marsh. You have this wonderful close-up look at bugs and all kinds of things in the water, as well as the wonderful expanse of open area. I think it is a terrific treasure.
We have had earlier witnesses talk to us about the proposed endangered species legislation and the fact that we're going to be entering into consultation around that across this country. I was wondering if members of this panel would like to comment from their own perspective as to what the one or two key elements are that they would like to see in the endangered species legislation.
Mr. McNamee: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I guess I would like to see in endangered species legislation. Governments do some good work in coming together to list species as endangered, but there's nothing that actually compels people to start to do something about it. The development of recovery plans depends on whether someone's interested, or if there's some money available. If these species are endangered then we must be compelled to develop and implement recovery plans to save them. Otherwise we're going to end up spending more money to restore their habitats.
I'll leave it at one point.
Mr. Whittam: I think they have to be coupled with, as Kevin mentioned, the concern for endangered spaces. That ties in with our work with remedial action plans and looking at ecosystem planning. With the endangered species legislation I think we have to look at their habitat and where the animals and plants live, and make sure they are protected and preserved as well.
.2130
Mr. Germaine: For my comment, I have to agree with my colleagues, because habitat, wildlife, endangered species all go hand in hand. You can't protect one without the other; otherwise the other species will die out. That's just a fact.
Look on that table over there. That's a good example. Those things shouldn't be there. I can't really name off any species that should be protected, but I'm sure there are a lot of species there such that we don't even have enough studies done to see if they are endangered or not. We don't even know that. Why? Because we haven't gone out to do the research on whether they're dying out, getting shot off, getting poached for no reason at all.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Gagné, do you have any comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Gagné: No, thanks.
[English]
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I just want to say to all the witnesses tonight that I look upon all their reports as a very positive way to end the day. As my colleagues will remember, there were some periods yesterday when one could have got very pessimistic about the future of endangered wildlife and about wildland spaces in this country and around the world. We're mostly concerned with this country, of course. I think the four gentlemen tonight have left me with a more positive attitude than I had when I went home last night.
I don't have any large questions, but I have a couple of little ones.
Mr. Germaine, you mentioned in your paper - and my colleague, Mr. Adams, referred to it - two countries, one state, two territories, five first nations. What part did the United States government play in this? Are they members of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board? I don't find it anywhere in your paper and I want to know what the involvement is there.
Mr. Germaine: The Porcupine Caribou Management Board is a management board on the Canadian side. The International Porcupine Caribou Board is on the Alaskan side and the Canadian representatives have a seat on that. The Canadian government has a seat on that. The chair of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, from the Yukon or the Canada side, has a say in that as well. That operates on the Alaskan side. There is a lot of coordination and communication between the two boards. They also have a Gwich'in representative and native representatives on their borders as well.
Mr. Finlay: They'll be from Alaska.
Mr. Germaine: They will be from Alaska, yes.
Mr. Finlay: So the chair of your board and one other person....
Mr. Germaine: Yes, the Canadian government representative.
Mr. Finlay: Does that seem to work quite well?
Mr. Germaine: It seems to work quite well as long as the communication and coordination, those goals and objectives, are there for them to talk about and for them to put a positive mind and their hearts to it. Yes, positive decisions get made.
Mr. Finlay: I must come to Wye Marsh. I've seen it advertised throughout our school system and I certainly applaud the use you've made of the property.
You have reminded us about something that was brought up this afternoon with respect to lead shot, and I guess you'd have absolutely no doubt that it's fairly deadly stuff - certainly for trumpeter swans and all other birds that feed on the bottom.
.2135
Mr. Whittam: Diving ducks and swans are especially susceptible. They are just a sentinel species on which we're gathering data. As was mentioned earlier by Mr. Caccia, we took lead out of gasoline and we've taken it out of ceramics and paint, but we're still dumping it by the tonne into Canadian marshes. It's about time, as Dr. Thomas said, we got the lead out.
Our data shows conclusively that it's a serious problem in our area. Extrapolating that across the country, it's a serious problem elsewhere as well.
Mr. Finlay: Exactly.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagné: I would just like to add that within our project there is hunting in the marshes, but that as of last year we banned lead shot. Only non-toxic shot has been allowed on our lands since that time. We are only a private non-profit organization, but we have imposed this measure on hunters who cooperate with us.
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Excellent.
Mr. McNamee: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back very quickly to the ``1002'' issue.
You asked about the Americans. I think it is also worth pointing out that Canada has signed four international agreements and conventions that cover this area with the United States, including one that deals with caribou, one with polar bears, and one with the North American waterfowl management program. There's a fourth one I can't recall. There are signed agreements. It's not just cooperative.
If you want to turn to the case of international law, there certainly is some international law on our side compelling the United States and the Republicans in Congress not to open this area up. If you do meet with them in the future, I would suggest you raise that. In fact, Parliament told them in 1987 that Canada would hold the United States in contravention of those four accords if the Americans went ahead and opened up the Arctic refuge to oil.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. De Villers, you are next.
Mr. De Villers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to echo the comments of my colleagues in congratulating all the panellists on their projects and their successes. It is indeed encouraging to hear these, although I have to declare a conflict of interest and some bragging rights in the success story of the Wye Marsh, which was coming from my riding in Simcoe North.
I'd like to ask Mr. Whittam specifically about the lead shot initiatives that I understand have been taken by the Friends of the Marsh. Could you describe what they've been doing?
Mr. Whittam: We've been doing a number of things. When there's a crisis, you take a shotgun approach - no pun intended - and you do everything you can.
For example, on Monday of this week we were on the front page of The Toronto Star about lead poisoning and its effect on the behaviour of trumpeter swans. That's one side of planning. The other side is a rational approach to it, working in concert with colleagues from the University of Guelph and local veterinary services. We're establishing sedimentation rates for lead and looking at how to make lead more unavailable to birds once it's been banned.
As I mentioned in my presentation, we have to make sure it's banned first. Then we have to do some work on determining how long it's going to be available to birds, and on trying methods to make it unavailable. It's a very serious problem. As you know, Dr. Thomas mentioned this afternoon the United States banned lead for waterfowl hunting four years ago, in a country that doesn't ban anything easily when it comes to firearms. I think it's about time that we followed suit.
I'd suggest that the hot spot theory, as we mentioned, is just not working. Our data shows that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that birds can fly, so just because Lake St. Clair is declared toxic, and Wye Marsh is declared toxic - a hot spot, rather.... Those are the two areas in Ontario that the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Ministry of Natural Resources have declared lead-free. The zone will be expanded thanks to our work this year to include all the wildlife management units - 76, I believe, which are still not enough. Until all the provinces ban, we can't go ahead on our research to reintroduce trumpeter swans, and to find a method of making lead unavailable to the birds.
Mr. De Villers: Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Germaine. In your presentation you indicate your board functions on the basis of consensus. I think you indicate it might be a somewhat slower process at times, but you find that you get better results. I wonder if you could describe how well that has worked and if when it was being set up there were some initial growing pains.
.2140
Mr. Germaine: At the beginning, when we first started, we tried to work around it. It took about two to three years before we got a lot of this consensus-making down pat. I guess where it changed was when we started to ask some elderly members to come basically to explain to us how in the past native people came to a consensus, because that's the first thing first nations have always done. They've always wanted to make decisions by consensus, where everybody agrees and nobody goes away broken-hearted or on one side.
So we started bringing in elders and getting them on the board. Some of them have been involved for nine years or more now. Some of them who sit on the board today even negotiated part of this agreement. Basically, they took us, the younger people, through how decision-making should be done, and that's by consensus.
We did have some growing pains at the beginning because of the lack of understanding with the younger generations, who are still just getting on the board, getting to know the process, getting to know how to make decisions. It took elders to teach younger people like myself.
Mr. De Villers: Do you think there's any chance you could teach the Canadian parliamentary system to function like that?
Mr. Germaine: I'm always open to that.
The Chairman: It certainly needs you.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: If the committee wants to visit your community, which seems to be quite forward-looking in this field, is it only possible in the month of April or are there other periods which would be suitable?
Mr. Gagné: Waterfowl is abondant from March to November. However, it is when they stop during their migration that you can see the most birds, mostly Canada geese and snow geese. All through summer, you can see tip-up ducks and also some diving ducks, since this is where they nest.
Baie-du-Febvre is also the only place in Quebec where the ruddy duck nests. There are five or six pairs. The Silwon phalarope also nests in Baie-du-Febvre. Some flocks come all through the year and there are always a lot of birds. The best time to see them is of course the month of April, but June, July and August are also a good choice.
Mr. Sauvageau: You will welcome us.
Mr. Gagné: We will show you the installations and the way we operate. You will also get to see a lot of birds.
Mr. Sauvageau: Excellent. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: All right, before concluding, a brief question from here. Mr. Germaine, in your excellent report on page 2, one reads that you counted some 178,000 caribou in 1989 and 160,000 in 1992, a decline of some 18,000. Have you any more recent figure to give us an indication of a trend?
Mr. Germaine: The most recent figure, as I indicated in my report, was 152,000. That was the last report.
The Chairman: In which year was that?
Mr. Germaine: That was in 1994.
The Chairman: Will you have another figure by the end of this year?
Mr. Germaine: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine.
Well, this concludes our session tonight.
Mr. Adams: Could I make a comment? It really strikes me that it is time for a review of the parks review. Perhaps joint hearings between ourselves and Heritage and perhaps between ourselves and the territories would be most appropriate. I just thought I'd mention that.
.2145
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Gagné, for having banned use of lead in your region and to thank you for your presence here tonight.
[English]
I would like to thank you, Mr. McNamee, for your incisive presentation and assure you that some of your questions will be answered.
Thank you, Mr. Whittam, for your extremely comprehensive and wise presentation on the experience you have had in switching from public to private.
Thank you, Mr. Germaine, for your excellent documentation. We wish you well. If you need some help in counting caribou, there may be some volunteers around this table.
Tomorrow we will meet at 8:15 a.m. because we have an additional witness who has asked to appear on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. I apologize. See whether you can make it. That doesn't help one member who collapsed.
Finally, because the work in the Arctic will require the professional services of an adviser from the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, in the person of Terry Fenge, it would be helpful if there were a motion to the effect that an amount of $1,500 be made available to cover such professional services.
Mr. Finlay: I so move.
Mr. Adams: I second the motion.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: It was a great evening.
The meeting is adjourned.