EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 5, 1996

.0835

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, for a change of theme, we will be addressing the issue of endangered species. We shall begin by hearing our witnesses.

[English]

We're very glad to welcome officials from Environment Canada and from the Canadian Wildlife Service, who will give an overview of the bill. Then probably we'll ask them some relevant questions.

Before recognizing and launching the deputy minister, we welcome him in a particularly cordial way, since this is the first time we have him before us.

Let me draw your attention to an editorial in The Globe and Mail today entitled ``Endangered and spaced out''. It's not my custom to find an editorial in The Globe and Mail very conducive, but for a change, it seems to be on the right wavelength.

I will read one paragraph for your information. The first and second paragraphs blasted us. This is the third paragraph:

The most positive thing about Ottawa's bill is that it exists at all. It is better than nothing, and in its flawed form it is provoking public discussion in an area that until now had been shrouded in silence. Its imperfect existence is at least helping to create a constituency for its expansion and improvement.

The last paragraphs read as follows:

The provinces last month promised to introduce complementary legislation if necessary. Ottawa's bill still leaves most of this matter in provincial hands. Is that as things should be? Ottawa has the constitutional power to protect creatures that migrate internationally and interprovincially. It can also protect wetland creatures. If Ottawa acts in pursuit of signed international obligations, it may even have jurisdiction over creatures on provincial turf.

Ottawa has the power. It should use it.

Perhaps against that background, if you like, of editorial blessing, for what it is worth - you know that editorials can always be misleading in terms of public opinion - we would like then to collectively, I'm sure, welcome you, Mr. Glen. You may want to introduce your colleagues, then launch yourself into your presentation.

Mr. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister, Department of Environment): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman. In as non-political a way as a public servant can, I may have a few quick comments to make on the editorial as we start our session.

I wanted to be here today to try to appreciate, along with my colleagues, the general concerns you people would have going into the bill. In what we would call a technical briefing, today and tomorrow we will start to deal with a number of the issues so that people have a fair understanding and background of the bill.

.0840

Like many of you, I wouldn't profess to be an expert in these matters, but I am quite confident in having people with me today who are experts in the area. They represent Environment Canada well.

My four colleagues are Steven Curtis; David Brackett; Lynda Maltby and Bernard Conilh de Beyssac. They'll be with us today. We'll have others joining us tomorrow to assist in other aspects. I believe tomorrow is more into habitat management, recovery and planning. There's the COSEWIC work as well.

Here's a quick comment on the editorial. I, like the editorialist, am quite pleased that the bill is before you and that we can advance, on behalf of the government, an initiative that does represent a first effort federally to capture an initiative whereby we will deal with endangered species comprehensively at the federal level.

It also represents an initiative that comes in shortly after the government has engaged in a national accord with the provinces. You'll hear more from our minister when he appears before you during clause by clause. But our view is that the combination of both the federal initiative with good and positive action by the provinces will ensure a comprehensive approach to endangered species.

Additionally, there are provisions, as we will explain to you, that will deal with international, cross-border migration protection. I'm sure you'll have questions on this that we'll try to explain as well.

In terms of the material before you, a big binder was sent around. David Brackett and I were talking just a minute ago about how to describe it. You could either call it a chronology of events or perhaps a road map of how we got here. But we hope that in taking you through that material later, or using it as a reference piece for you, it should provide quite a comprehensive background to assist people. I believe all members now have a copy of that. It may be overwhelming at first, but I think it's useful for all.

The Chairman: You shouldn't worry about that. What the members will finally be focusing on here and in public hearings will be the substance of the legislation.

Mr. Glen: That's right.

The Chairman: That's where the focus of all our discussion ought to be. You ought to know that this committee plans, if approval is given, to hold public hearings in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and then back again in Ottawa. In those public hearings, the discussion will be focused on the content of the legislation.

Mr. Glen: We understand that. In fact, we encourage that.

The Chairman: But it's not to be on the content of the briefing book.

Mr. Glen: No, we understand. Our desire in preparing the briefing book was simply to serve as a backgrounder for you if you needed reference documents during the various stages of work, up to where we are today.

We prepared for today what we call a deck that will just be sort of an entry point. Then after that, depending on how you would want to engage me and my colleagues, just draw your questions or draw out further on the deck to assist you.

I would draw your attention to page 1. In essence, there are three key elements to the legislation that will be before you, Bill C-65.

It will be broken into a listing process, which will provide a list of species at risk. Then there's a component of the bill that will be what we refer to as a recovery planning process, which will identify all of the measures that will be needed to restore a species. Then there are administrative provisions in the bill that deal with fines, civil enforcement and partnership arrangements. Those are the key blocks and features. As well, it will cover habitat, habitat management and international aspects.

In terms of the listing process, the bill will take COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and give it legal status. So in essence, COSEWIC will now have statutory authority under which it can operate.

.0845

As for COSEWIC, we will want to have procedures in terms of reference and membership to ensure that we include advice from the provinces and the territories as well. We do think it's essential for COSEWIC to be able to provide independent advice based on the best information available, whatever the source. In essence, we're trying to use COSEWIC as a science entry to dealing with the listing of endangered species.

The Chairman: Could you explain the composition of that committee?

Mr. Glen: We can.

Dave, do you want to take them through how it's structured?

Mr. David Brackett (Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Environment): As currently constituted, COSEWIC has representatives from federal government agencies, provincial agencies and non-government groups. As proposed in Bill C-65, COSEWIC would have 9 members appointed by the Minister of Environment on the advice of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, which would be a ministerial-level federal-provincial council with membership coming from all ministers who have responsibilities for managing wildlife.

The committee would then establish for itself a series of subcommittees and working groups. Its practice now is to deal with particular taxonomic groupings like mammals, fish, plants and so on.

The Chairman: Would these people be mostly scientists?

Mr. Brackett: The expectation is that the members of COSEWIC would have a background in either science or traditional knowledge. They would have to, by the bill, be experts in the field. That is left somewhat open in order that community knowledge and traditional knowledge may be considered in terms of appointing the people.

The Chairman: I thought this little parenthesis was necessary to put COSEWIC in the proper light.

Mr. Glen: It's very helpful. It is an important aspect of how we envision the legislation working. As we said earlier, we want to ensure we're drawing upon the science to inform the government actions.

There will be provisions that will have automatic prohibitions kicking in when species are identified as endangered. Additionally, if COSEWIC advises that the survival of a particular species is immediately threatened, the minister, under the statute, or under the bill, will have emergency powers that can kick in as well to ensure that species under federal authority are immediately protected.

The Chairman: Is ``survival'' clearly defined as far as you're concerned?

Mr. Brackett: The question of whether there is an emergency situation will be left to be judged on a case-by-case basis by COSEWIC, because the life histories of the species we're dealing with vary so widely that it gives the experts involved the opportunity to make the argument with respect to each species. Therefore, it provides, we think, the greatest security for the species.

The Chairman: So the benchmark for survival will change from species to species. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Brackett: Yes, because the benchmark will be different depending on the individual species. I should say that this is with respect to what constitutes an emergency. As for the benchmark with respect to listing, we would expect that to not change. The question of what constitutes an emergency for a species may be different from case to case.

Mr. Glen: In terms of the portions of the bill dealing with recovery and management plans, the scheme of it that is set out would ensure that for species that are identified as endangered, there would have to be recovery and management plans put in place within one year.

.0850

If you're dealing with threatened or extirpated species, the plans have to be brought into place within two years. It's a standard within three years for species that are determined to be vulnerable.

In terms of the bill, it will provide a standard for what should be contained in recovery plans. So it'll try to structure somewhat what the recovery plan should be.

Typically, those measures that would likely be included are ones critical to habitat identification and protection, recovery activities, recovery targets and research needs, which are the sciences that engage well to contain the proper recovery plans.

In terms of the administration -

The Chairman: Before you go into that, since you dropped the magic word ``habitat'', can you elaborate a bit for us as to how the habitat is treated in the bill?

Mr. Brackett: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, the recovery-planning process would consider all the factors that have been identified in the status report on the species. The information flow would be the preparation of the status report by individuals most closely involved with the species, which would come from any number of sources. In the process of doing so, they would make the arguments for listing the species, including the arguments with respect to habitat issues that were a factor in putting the species at risk.

In preparing the recovery plan, the recovery team would take those factors into account and make its recommendations on those actions that needed to be taken to either protect habitat, restrict the uses of certain areas or change practices with respect to certain habitats.

These items could then be entered into legislation either directly through this act, or through any one of a number of other pieces of legislation that are available to the federal government, including things like the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Act and so on.

The Chairman: Since the bill defines ``critical habitat'', but not ``habitat'', could you give us an idea as to the definition implied by the term ``habitat'' as it is used throughout the bill?

Mr. Brackett: With respect to any individual species, it is that part of the natural world that is required for the survival and continued good health of the populations of those species. The amount of intervention -

The Chairman: Is that the international understanding of the term?

Mr. Brackett: There is a common understanding of that term within wildlife management fields. The definitions vary and are used differently in a number of different international instruments, including things of a relatively undefined nature and things like the Convention of Biological Diversity, to much more complex definitions in things like the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Small Animals or the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats in Europe, and under different international treaties like the Bonn convention.

Ms Lynda Maltby (Chief, Endangered Species Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Environment): Mr. Chairman, with regard to the definition of critical habitat, when COSEWIC does its assessment and therefore designates a species at risk in Canada, it also will articulate or try to define what the critical habitat is that should be looked at in any kind of subsequent recovery action.

The Chairman: That's very helpful. Thank you.

Please go ahead.

Mr. Glen: On the administration part, we said earlier that there are aspects dealing with partnerships. The bill will allow and encourage arrangements with other levels of government, the private sector, universities and NGOs.

The reality in this area - the legislation tries to instil it - is that it will take the cooperation and the effort of many interests in order to effectively engage in recovery planning and to do so at a lower cost to all governments.

.0855

The bill will have quite a tough set of penalties set out in -

The Chairman: Before you go into penalties, can you give the committee an idea about administrative arrangements as they compare to jurisdictions outside Canada? Roughly, how do they compare?

Mr. Brackett: With respect to relationships outside Canada, those are mediated through a series of agreements already in place, plus the ability in this bill -

The Chairman: Would you enumerate the agreements, please?

Mr. Brackett: Yes, sir. This bill also provides the opportunity to enter into specific agreements with partners. We do have in place already the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada was an early signatory and early ratifier. There is, as well, CITES, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.

The Chairman: How old is that? Can you refresh our memories?

Mr. Brackett: Canada, I believe, acceded to that convention in 1975. It was signed in Washington, if I'm not mistaken, in 1973.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is much more recent. The third meeting of the conference of the parties began yesterday in Buenos Aires.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act also has aspects that deal with migratory birds.

With respect to fisheries, particularly marine fisheries, there are a large number of international agreements for the management of specific stocks and particular fishing areas. There are bodies like the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, groups associated with Pacific and Atlantic tuna and salmon, discussions - members are quite familiar with these - with the United States and other countries and a wide range of these kinds of international agreements and treaties with respect to fisheries.

I'm sorry, but I don't know all of those in the same detail.

The Chairman: So these treaties and agreements will be invoked in terms of the implementation of this act? How do you see this proceeding?

Mr. Brackett: Yes, sir. They help us manage the relationship with respect to a whole range of species with our international partners. We can use those treaties or the ability to enter into new agreements to implement, for instance, the recovery-planning actions for species that cross our borders.

The Chairman: In subsequent hearings, would you be able - not today, of course - to give the committee an idea as to which of these treaties needs to be updated in order for it to become more operational once this bill is proclaimed?

Mr. Brackett: We have, as the deputy minister points out, the ability to enter into new agreements that will help us in that respect. With respect to the existing treaties and agreements, I would be very pleased to provide an annotated list, particularly on the fisheries side, and for that matter, forestry as well. It may take a few days to gather that information.

The Chairman: So long as it's done before we start the clause-by-clause analysis.

Please, go ahead.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to stop the flow any more than you do.

The Chairman: No, no, I have stopped it many times.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Glen, this question of terminology really is quite important. The chair has already gone into it.

Say, for example, our definition of ``habitat'' were different from someone else's. I wondered about terms like ``extinct'' and ``extirpated''. Does the act use those terms in a way that is widely accepted, or are our definitions, if you like, stronger or weaker than those in other jurisdictions?

Mr. Brackett: We use a series of terms in the act. ``Extinct'' and ``extirpated'' are defined, because ``extinct'' means the same thing at one level to everyone. It no longer exists, period.

.0900

The question of how long you wait before you make that determination may vary from place to place. We've had several happy instances in the past several years where species that were thought to be extinct have been rediscovered in out-of-the-way places. There was a recent note in the papers about the possibility that the blue pike, which was considered extinct from Lake Erie, may not have disappeared entirely.

``Extirpated'' is also well defined. It means no longer living in the wild in a particular jurisdiction or country. Again, that is subject only to some quibbling about how long before you make that determination. But it is usually well defined.

The Chairman: Is the domestic cat extirpated?

Mr. Brackett: Domestic cats would not be considered extirpated. An example would be the plains grizzly bear. The population of grizzly bears that lived in the working agricultural landscape of the prairies was eliminated much earlier. So that population is considered extirpated in that there are still grizzly bears alive in the wild, but there are none in that particular area.

The Chairman: So a change in area could...? I'm not following you. Perhaps you can indicate to us a definition that also includes this change in areas. It's still in the wild, but not in the originally defined natural habitat? Is that what it means?

Mr. Brackett: It becomes complicated. We talk in the bill not just about species - if we consider the grizzly bear as a single species - but also about populations. A population is a geographically or genetically distinct group of individuals. So when I talk about the grizzly bear being extirpated from the prairies, it is with respect to that prairie population and not the species as a whole.

Perhaps another use of the term extirpated would be when a species no longer exists in the wild, but still exists in captivity. I had the opportunity to visit the Toronto zoo last Friday with Minister Marchi. We were shown a group of przhevalski's horses - the European wild horse - which has been eliminated from the wild but still exists in captive populations in the zoo. So that species is considered extirpated in the wild, but still survives in this case in captivity.

Another example in the zoo was the black-footed ferret, which used to live in the southern prairies in Canada. It no longer does in the wild, but there is a population in the United States and some in captivity in the Toronto zoo. So that species is considered extirpated in Canada unless and until we reintroduce them into the wild.

Mr. Adams: If I told an American who was interested in this topic that such and such a species is extirpated, using the definition here, would he or she understand what I meant?

Mr. Brackett: Yes, but you would qualify it by saying extirpated in Canada.

Mr. Adams: Okay.

The Chairman: That's very helpful, Mr. Adams. Thank you.

By all means, please intervene when it comes to matters of definition.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): The plains grizzly bear you mentioned, is it genetically the same as grizzly bears in Banff National Park in the mountains? Or do we know for sure?

Mr. Brackett: That's a question where you're getting well beyond my technical expertise. The status report we've done for COSEWIC would have covered that.

Lynda, I'm not sure if you can bring that to mind.

Ms Maltby: With regard to the plains grizzly bear, there's quite a bit of controversy over whether it was genetically a separate population or not. It really hasn't been decided one way or the other. What is clear, though, is that the plains grizzly bear occupied that particular area. It was adapted to that area and has been extirpated from that area, so there is this lack of that particular type of bear in that area.

.0905

The Chairman: In other words, we are on highly theological ground, are we?

Ms Maltby: In the case of the plains grizzly bear, it is quite controversial on a technical and scientific level. There is the possibility of genetic differences from one population to the other.

Mr. Brackett: Mr. Chairman, part of the earlier question also dealt with other categories of risk. Perhaps I could carry on to that if there are no further questions.

Mr. Finlay: So we are to understand that no longer existing in the wild in Canada might also mean no longer existing in a large specific area in the wild in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter.

The Chairman: Seulement sur les définitions -

Mr. Brackett: That's correct, because of the definition of species in the bill, which talks not only about species in the biological sense of the term but also populations and subspecies and distinct geographic areas.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay, let's carry on.

Mr. Brackett: There are several other terms used to describe levels of risk - ``endangered'', ``threatened'' and ``vulnerable'' - and those definitions are more variable on a worldwide basis. What's important is not only the definition as such, but the criteria used to draw the limits between those definitions. Perhaps the most widely used system in the world is the system used by the World Conservation Union, which just before the Montreal meeting of the World Conservation Congress last month, released its updated red list of endangered species. It uses the terms slightly differently. It uses ``critically endangered'', ``endangered'' and ``vulnerable'' to equate primarily to our two categories of ``endangered'' and ``threatened''. Then it uses ``lower conservation risk'' as the term equivalent to our use of the word ``vulnerable''.

The Chairman: If that is not included in the briefing, you might wish to supply the members of the committee with that particular document.

Mr. Brackett: I'm not certain sufficient copies of the red list itself will be available. It is a quite substantial document, and was published recently. It is widely available directly on the Internet. The criteria and definitions are available, and we can make those available to committee members.

The Chairman: I'm sure some committee members will want to read it at midnight.

Mr. Brackett: I find it an interesting document, sir.

The terms endangered, threatened and vulnerable are defined in Bill C-65, but it is left to the scientists and experts of COSEWIC to recommend the specific criteria that would be used to differentiate among and between those categories.

So that's where the technical discussion and final recommendation on the benchmarks that you referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman, will come from.

Mr. Glen: The notes you are using, Mr. Chairman, are simply to facilitate discussion. I don't want to inhibit questioning as we go, because that may be the smartest way of doing some of this.

The Chairman: We've broken a golden rule by interrupting, but we needed that because of the finishing purpose.

Mr. Glen: I think it was quite constructive.

The Chairman: From now on we will restrain ourselves and show a high degree of discipline.

Mr. Glen: I'm actually encouraging just the opposite. Lack of discipline and engagement may assist all of us.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Can I stop you? Is there a glossary of terms somewhere?

Mr. Glen: There's a definitions section in the bill. In the early going we will have the terms there.

The Chairman: It's in the first few pages of the bill. Otherwise, we'll have to refer to the red bible Mr. Brackett showed us earlier, the IUCN document.

.0910

Mr. Glen: What we'll take from this discussion, quite wisely, particularly where the terms...we're defining them so that they have a particular meaning and application in Canada.

As you pointed out, Mr. Caccia, where there may be then inconsistency internationally, we'll ensure we're revealing that to people later so that they understand that well enough.

Mr. Knutson, in the material that was part of the information package when Mr. Marchi tabled the bill last week, page 13 has a glossary of terms. It's not as specific as in the bill, but it's more in layman's language. So there's that as well.

The Chairman: Would you please put on the record the title of the document.

Mr. Glen: The document is Canada Endangered Species Protection Act: A Summary. I guess we would call it a layman's -

The Chairman: It was the in the kit that was distributed last week?

Mr. Glen: It's in there.

The Chairman: Carry on.

Mr. Glen: The bill will also have provisions for penalties and alternate measures. The penalties being proposed in the legislation are quite tough. There are up to $1 million fines to corporations for repeat offences, and up to $500,000 for an individual. So in terms of the strictest measures that could be applied, onerous provisions of the law would be brought in.

There will also be provisions dealing with civil enforcement. So if private citizens believe the actions of the government are not adequate under the act with respect to a particular species, civil enforcement measures are there to allow those remedies to apply.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Glen: We spoke earlier on the habitats. The bill will ensure that habitat issues are identified by COSEWIC, and that in turn they're factored into the responses in the recovery plans. In terms of habitats on federal lands and waters, I believe coverage under this bill will be roughly 60% of the land and water mass of Canada. As well, as I said, with respect to habitat there will be emergency order provisions where it's necessary to come in ahead of a full recovery and put in place certain restrictive regimes.

The last part we wanted to draw to people's attention is the one dealing with cross-border species protection. Reference to that provision found its way into a Globe and Mail editorial today. The government's expectation is that there will be a COSEWIC trigger as a measure to ensure that this legislation can deal with species that range across Canada's international boundaries.

The measures, if necessary for the government to use, would engage after consultation with the provinces to take steps to protect threatened or endangered animal species. COSEWIC would first clearly determine whether an endangered or threatened animal species crosses international boundaries. So the science will inform us whether we have a cross-boundary circumstance. Then regulations could be developed and implemented prohibiting any person from wilfully killing, harming, harassing, capturing or knowingly engaging in activities that may damage or destroy the residence, such as nests or dens, of an individual of that species.

The regulations would not be implemented in a province where equivalent provisions are in place to deal with it. So we won't be crossing over where the provincial regime is adequate, but COSEWIC would have the capacity to advise the federal government when we're dealing with a species that does, in fact, involve international cross-border migration or application.

One of the important provisions of the bill also has to be reflected against the national accord the government is engaging in with the provinces so that we have a harmonized endangered species management regime across the country.

.0915

That's a quick overview, Mr. Chair, meant only to try to stimulate some discussion.

The Chairman: Mr. Glen, it was a quick overview, and it was very kind of you to do it in that way, but since habitat is the essence of this bill you may want to tell us about the habitat issues as you see them. That is the life and blood of this bill.

Mr. Brackett: The ``habitat issue'', if we can call it that, can be broken down into a number of considerations. One would be a question of where does the federal government have authority to order habitat protection measures? Second, which lands are taken into account when considering the status of the species? And so on and so forth.

The coverage of this bill is complex because of the jurisdictional arrangements for managing species in Canada. All of Canada is covered with respect to some species, lesser areas with respect to other species and actions and even smaller areas with respect to a third group of species. Perhaps I could describe those.

The bill sets out in its scope section reference to aquatic species. Those are species that are managed primarily under the Fisheries Act. Over that the federal government has extensive jurisdiction with respect to the management of both those species and their habitats. That includes large areas of ocean out to the 200-mile limit and in some cases beyond, and freshwaters throughout the land mass of Canada. In certain instances some of those authorities have in fact been delegated to provinces, and that is a continuing discussion as we speak.

The second piece of significant federal legislation that deals with management of species is the Migratory Birds Convention Act. That act is drawn on a treaty that was established in 1916 as an Empire treaty, and it's from that status that the principle responsibility by the federal government flows. That means, therefore, the federal implementing legislation, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, draws its authority from the terms of the treaty.

Habitat is less generously covered, if I might put it that way, in that treaty than it is with respect to the fundamentals for the Fisheries Act, which derives from a head of power in the Constitution. That means habitat authorities for migratory birds deal primarily with enabling authorities to establish habitat protection areas - migratory bird sanctuaries, for instance - and to deal with habitat that is being actively used by birds. There are opinions and a certain amount of jurisprudence that limits the habitat responsibilities with respect to migratory birds.

The other feature of that 1916 treaty was that it listed birds that were migratory and generally useful to man, in the language of the treaty in 1916, and therefore left out of the terms of the treaty a number of raptors, owls, hawks and so on.

Those birds, while they do migrate, are not covered by the treaty, and as such remain the responsibility of the provinces and territories for management purposes, although with this bill, since they cross borders, there are authorities for the federal minister with respect to those species in certain circumstances, for example after COSEWIC has designated them as endangered or threatened.

To establish those authorities the government in this bill is drawing on a limited application of the criminal law power that derives from prevention of cruelty to animals. That is why that cross-border species application, as the deputy said in his remarks, is limited to international cross-border animal species.

.0920

As the bill also then deals with the remainder of species that are not managed by the federal government, and as COSEWIC designates those as endangered or threatened, it binds the federal government to take that into account and act in favour of those species on all federal lands.

There is quite an extensive definition of federal land in the bill that draws from a number of sources. It includes all of the oceans' coverage offshore. It includes that 5% to 6% in southern Canada, if I may put it that way, in the provinces that is owned or managed by the federal government, and it includes the two territories.

With respect to the two territories, the bill further goes on to provide authority to the federal minister to delegate back to the two territories the management responsibility for species, as and when the territories demonstrate a willingness and capacity to provide the same level of protection for those species that is provided under the federal act.

I've left one federal minister out of the mix to this point, and that is the minister responsible for national parks, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Under the National Parks Act that minister has full authority for the management of all wildlife within the boundaries of those national parks.

While this is a complex arrangement, perhaps, to deal with the habitat of species, it is reflective of the make-up, if you will, of authorities with respect to managing wildlife across the country.

The Chairman: All right. We've had a good 50 minutes of briefing. Now let's have a good round of questions.

We'll start with Madame Guay, s'il vous plaît, followed by Mr. Adams.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Although this bill has been well received, we have also heard some criticism. I have several questions concerning, among other things, the application of this act in harmony with what the provinces will be doing. Four out of ten provinces already have legislation concerning endangered species, Quebec among them - and, as you know, Quebec has a considerable body of legislation in this field - while six do not. How would the minister view the application of this act in harmony with the ten provinces at this time?

Mr. Brackett: If you will allow me, I will answer in English.

[English]

While it is true that four provinces have legislation that deals specifically with endangered species, the other six provinces and the two territories do have legislation that deals with wildlife, including endangered species, but it is not dedicated solely to that task. We think it's important that, as for the federal government, we provide an emphasis. That is why on October 2 of this year, in a meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts, the minister reached agreement on a national accord for the protection of species at risk.

A substantial part of that accord is a commitment by all jurisdictions to establish programs and legislation that deal with a number of very specific features that we feel are necessary for the protection of endangered and threatened species. That accord is available to members at tab 13 of the briefing book, and while it is fairly short - two 8.5x11 pages - it contains a significant number of very specific promises and requirements.

.0925

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Earlier on, someone said that this bill is a sort of first attempt on the part of the federal government. Does that mean that the act will eventually be amended in order to give it more teeth, or that another bill will be submitted later to Parliament? Earlier on, someone said that this act is just a first step.

[English]

Mr. Glen: What I was saying at the outset was that this is the first initiative by a federal government to put into law a specific statute to deal with endangered species. From that point of view we are quite delighted that an initiative now comes before you that will do that.

In terms of whether it truly is enough, as I think we find with many federal statutes now that are administered not just by Environment Canada but also by others, there is a value to having a review of a law after a certain period of time. One is proposed in the legislation for this bill as well, and that would be a three-year review.

We are hoping that over the course of the three years a number of things can be well assessed. One is the adequacy of the science framework put to this initiative. The other is the development, and subsuming within this, the advances under the national accord with the provinces, and would go very much to the point you were making about the completeness of the legal framework we have across the country.

We are hoping that after coming into force of this bill, if it clears Parliament, we will have quite significant lessons to be learned in the first three years, and then review to determine what more needs to be done, if at all, to advance the regime.

The provisions, I believe, without looking at them directly, would be for both a three-year review and then a subsequent five-year review, so that the statute in fact would require parliamentary review on a planned cycle. The assessment of the science and how we're doing under the legislation to protect endangered species is an important objective we are trying to set out.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: There is another aspect of the act that concerns me. It relates to native peoples. It is claimed that this act will respect native peoples' aboriginal rights. How do you plan to apply this legislation to native lands?

[English]

Mr. Brackett: There are a number of ways in which questions related to the aboriginal people of Canada come into play in the bill. The bill does include a non-derogation clause that is a declaration of the government's intent. This is one area where Supreme Court cases have provided that there is a reasonable test for conservation measures for the protection of species. Throughout our discussions with aboriginal groups in Canada, they very clearly recognize the need for restrictions on those aboriginal rights for the protection of endangered and threatened species, and those are not ruled out.

There are portions of the bill that deal with prohibitions, and there are certain exemptions there for traditional uses of aboriginal people as well. The important part to make all of that work is the inclusion of traditional knowledge on things like COSEWIC for bringing information to bear for listing, and the recovery planning process. In both cases there is specific reference to the need to incorporate both traditional knowledge, but also community knowledge from such things as farm groups and so on - other people who live and work closely with species on the land.

.0930

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I have another question concerning the recovery fund that you mentioned. How will that fund be constituted? Is it already in place? How large will it be and who will contribute to it? I wonder if you might be a little more specific on that point?

[English]

Mr. Brackett: The habitat restoration funding and so on is expected to come from a number of different sources, including partnerships with non-government organizations and so on.

There are already certain funds dedicated to habitat protection, above and beyond the normal budgets of agencies like Parks Canada, which clearly spends a great deal of money on habitat in national parks. The wildlife habitat conservation stamp attached to the federal migratory game bird hunting licence is dedicated to the use of Wildlife Habitat Canada, which is a non-governmental organization that funds significant conservation work.

We have worked in partnership with groups such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which raises primarily corporate donations and works in habitat protection. A recent example was the setting aside of several thousands of hectares of shortgrass prairie in southern Saskatchewan in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, the North American waterfowl management plan, and Environment Canada, along with other partners.

There is an opportunity established by the bill to set up administrative arrangements to manage these funds. It does not function as an appropriations bill in itself.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Guay.

[English]

Mr. Adams, followed by Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like you, we're very pleased to see this improved version, if that's the right word, of this legislation before us. The Globe and Mail editorial that the chair read extracts from gives a sense of it, but it seems to me that in a confederation there's always a risk of federal legislation looking as though it's cobbled together, because you have to take into account other jurisdictions and the generations of federal legislation and that kind of thing.

If it's been cobbled together it's a type of net, and then your concern is, what holes are left in it? At this time, many of us feel the federal government is particularly weak because of our financial situation. We're taking steps rapidly to solve that, but it's a weak time, There's a danger, because we're financially weak, that we don't use and exert our powers to the full. I think that's what The Globe and Mail is talking about.

Mr. Glen, it seems to me that the Canadian Wildlife Service is a high-profile portion of the department. It's one that's often in the public eye, almost romanticized, if I might say that, in the public eye. Can you tell me, before members of the opposition ask this, in the last three years what has been the status of the Canadian Wildlife Service with respect to the cuts, which we know all our ministries have experienced, relative to other portions of the ministry? Has it been cut more, or less?

Mr. Glen: I may have to turn to David for that in terms of the raw arithmetic. In terms of the romanticism, I fear being here and not being romantic, with my colleagues here supporting me before you.

There's no doubt the Canadian Wildlife Service has a tradition Environment Canada is quite proud of. We're entirely sympathetic to the theme or the thrust of what you're raising.

In terms of the bill itself and how it's trying to advance this particular agenda, again I leave to Mr. Marchi to speak more on the thrust of the government. But we're satisfied that the powers being sought here complement and would then enhance the expected cooperation, in essence, the net across the country, where we want to engage provincial jurisdictions, and the territories as well, to advance this. So whether there is debate as to how far the federal authorities could go, in terms of advancing a particular authority under the criminal law powers that's what this bill has chosen to do.

.0935

In terms of the more parochial one of the Canadian Wildlife Service, I'm sure I'm now going to be told they have been hit in terms of overall budget cuts disproportionately to the purpose of their organization. I'll allow my environmental protection people time to come with another bill and answer your question then as well.

David, how did it go? Was it 30% on the A base over the last three years?

Mr. Brackett: In fact, I won't say that the Canadian Wildlife Service was hit disproportionately. It participated in a program review, which for Environment Canada was something in the order of a 30% reduction. Reductions in the Canadian Wildlife Service were of the same order. The accounting becomes difficult in some areas as organizational units have shifted, but the wildlife programs of the Canadian Wildlife Service were reduced proportionately with the rest of the department.

There were some areas that, in the course of program review, in fact received enhanced funding. The endangered species programs of the Canadian Wildlife Service were one area that was enhanced. Something in the neighbourhood of $1 million across the country was added to endangered species programming over the course of the three years of program review.

Within Environment Canada there were also some priority areas that were not reduced. Key among those was the enforcement program, which was not cut at all in order that it should maintain its priority for both environmental-protection legislation and for wildlife legislation. Those reductions did come into play. Other parts of the department were cut more dramatically.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, I think it's important that we discuss this here because we will be hit with it later on.

Mr. Curtis, what about habitat protection?

Mr. Steven Curtis (Director, Biodiversity Protection Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Environment): With respect to reductions to Environment Canada's budget?

Mr. Adams: Yes, in the same context.

Mr. Curtis: Reductions to the programs of the Canadian Wildlife Service were spread across the board. The area of habitat was not hit disproportionately. In fact, as part of the program review exercise, funding was found to keep the North American waterfowl management plan functioning. That plan is a cooperative arrangement with many partners: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with our American counterparts, with the provinces, and with landowners, for the protection and enhancement of habitat for waterfowl and for other migratory birds that use the wetlands.

The budget was not as great as it was before for this area, but because that program had sunsetted, part of the program review exercise actually secured funding for this program over the next number of years. So I think it's fair to conclude that habitat has fared fairly well in these program review exercises.

Mr. Adams: I appreciate that. I simply thought we should be as open as possible about those matters here.

Mr. Glen: Mr. Adams, can I just add something. It goes to what Steve Curtis was saying. I'll advance it a bit, because it's very difficult for us, as public servants, to explain the past when you're really dealing more with how we are going to deal with the future.

It was Mr. Knutson who hit me between the eyes on this when I was here before, and brought the point to my attention. The real challenge - and it is a challenge, one that I think this initiative represents well - is engaging, engaging with other jurisdictions, engaging with other interests that would come to play. We don't discount at all not only the capacity, but also the willingness, of other parties to engage well to deal with the particular concerns this legislation captures, which includes financing and includes the capacity either in money or in kind to address what is in play.

.0940

In any government administration these days you have concern about how can you do it effectively. We do feel in this one there is a genuine partnership there, including environmental interest groups as well. In fact, in large portion, it's their interest in these matters that's allowing us to move forward. We have to do that. That'll be a management challenge, but one I think we have fair confidence here is doable in the context of the endangered species concerns.

Mr. Adams: We want to support you. We want the legislation improved as much as is humanly possible, and we want it through. We do want to improve it, but we want to know the reality of it, and it's better we do that now. We're going to be speaking on this thing at various points in its evolution -

Mr. Glen: That's exactly how we're hearing the points.

Mr. Adams: Although, as the chair said, it's not an authority, one of the improvements noted in The Globe and Mail was:

The listing of endangered species should be the responsibility of [COSEWIC]. Period. The cabinet should not be able to pick and choose from among its findings. Once a species has been found to be endangered or threatened, recovery plans should be established. The bill must be strengthened so that those recovery plans, once drawn up, cannot be filed away.

I wanted your comments on that particular point, because I'm sure my colleagues have others.

Mr. Glen: The point is partly misunderstood. We're in part dealing with the challenge of ensuring the COSEWIC recommendations be captured in law. They will be given the force of regulation. That will require, which is traditional in statutes, that the recommendations then would be advanced to the Governor in Council and approved.

As I understand it, the concern was that science should be, in essence, sufficiently dominant that it cannot be challenged by government. It's taken as law simply by fiat of the scientists. That's not the legal regime we work in and it's not the legal regime we're then advancing under here. The prerogative of the Governor in Council to approve what becomes a regulation or not must still be maintained.

So there will be an expectation that the Governor in Council will be the final approving body of the recommendations coming from COSEWIC. That's the way not only this bill is structured, but, quite frankly, how federal laws are structured.

Mr. Brackett: Perhaps I could add as a supplementary to this that the bill also establishes a very transparent process. The original status report on which COSEWIC will make its decision is made available through a public registry, which we expect will be accessible to a wide range of people, particularly over the Internet. The decision of COSEWIC itself must be published and then the response of the government must be published.

The recovery planning process has time limits on it, and in regard to the summary of deliberations of the recovery team, the composition of the team and so on, public comment is invited at each of those stages. Public participation is encouraged, particularly on the recovery planning side.

So this becomes a separate public accountability with respect to the decision-making authorities of the various ministers and councils that are also established under the act. As the minister said in his press conference - I'll have to paraphrase it, because I don't have the words directly in front of me - there would be an extremely high political price to pay, in his estimation, with respect to the recommendations of COSEWIC.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Knutson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to raise a couple of points. One of the points that commentaries seem to be making is that this is a good first step and it's a better bill than an earlier proposed piece of legislation. I wondered if you could tell me what the improvements are.

.0945

Mr. Brackett: I think we should be clear that what was proposed earlier was a consultation document entitled, ``A Legislative Proposal'', but it was very clearly intended, as set out in the proposal itself, to be the basis for further discussion. In particular, it served as the basis for the second half of the work of the endangered species task force that first Minister Copps and then Minister Marchi charged with providing advice.

In that sense, the question of what has changed is more in the nature of the ongoing development of the bill that was tabled in the House of Commons rather than perhaps comparing two different bills.

Some particular parts are that the question of automatic prohibitions is much more clearly spelled out; the scope of application to federal lands and waters, particularly offshore and in the Northwest Territories, is more clearly spelled out; and the application to cross-boundary species is spelled out.

Mr. Knutson: Can you give me an example of the middle one?

Mr. Brackett: The legislative proposal that went out in August of 1995 had the opposite onus, if you will, with respect to the two territories, and in this case the bill assumes a federal responsibility for endangered species in the two territories unless and until that is delegated back to the territories. As well, this current bill makes the offshore application of the act much clearer.

Perhaps Steve Curtis, if I've missed anything in the significant parts....

Mr. Curtis: The August 1995 document did not have, as David alluded to, specific prohibitions that would kick in upon the listing of the species, prohibitions against killing and taking and so on. Those are there. That was a major, significant change.

Mr. Knutson: The fines and penalties, were they part of the original vision?

Mr. Curtis: No. I think they may have been contemplated, but they weren't spelled out and they certainly weren't given any precise numbers as they are now.

Mr. Knutson: One of the other themes that seems to be developing in commentaries, including the editorial in The Globe and Mail, is that this represents a first step. It's good to have piece of legislation on the books. I wondered, if people had to speculate on where we would be 10 years down the road, what would be the cutting edge amendments that people might look forward to over, say, the next five or ten years. What do we need to do next, assuming this gets passed?

Mr. Glen: As a non-expert but as someone appreciating the framework we're encouraging, I would advocate in a fairly neutral way that it's more than just a first step. It's trying to advance a fairly well-thought-out regime for the future.

Mr. Knutson: Fair enough.

Mr. Glen : That being said, I think more would be the completeness of it and the degree to which between the federal and the provincial laws there's a sufficient complementarity that you have, hopefully, no significant gaps to be administered or to worry about. That's one of the reasons we're hoping that with a three-year review, it's early enough and you can already start to address where there could well be gaps.

Beyond that, I would turn to the experts more in terms of particular habitat management concerns or particular species where you are certainly looking to a 10-year cycle. You're starting to put in train recovery plans that would give you confidence you're on the right track.

I'll turn to David, and perhaps Lynda as well, on that.

Mr. Brackett: I'd mention a couple of things. I would expect that at 10 years we would see a total legislative package across the country in the sense that all ten provinces, and by that point, three territories, would have specific legislation in play. I would expect to see some significant integration in the sense that the committee, like COSEWIC, would be specifically referenced in provincial and territorial legislation in some cases. In other cases it would be used as a source of advice.

.0950

I would expect to see the Endangered Species Conservation Council, the ministerial council, as a forum for a wider range of issues than just endangered species, but beginning to really advance the concepts of ecosystem management for nature. In 10 years I think we will have in place a number of recovery plans that will let us start to see how the interaction among and between these recovery plans can be dealt with and focused more on ecosystem-level protection.

That already shows in the recovery plans that are developed on a voluntary basis by RENEW, the committee on recovery of nationally endangered wildlife, but I think in 10 years we may have been able to think our way through applying some of those concepts in legislation that are not there now.

The last thing I would mention would be the evolution of the criteria. Internationally, there is a very significant intellectual exercise underway in terms of developing criteria.

Mr. Glen: Mr. Chairman, David mentioned what would be set up in the bill is the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. It really will be an important federal-provincial body to put in train, and one would hope that over time its interest would expand, arguably using endangered species as the starting point. But in what other ways could we have a more effective engagement of wildlife ministers across the country?

Ms Maltby: One of the things being proposed is this idea of a commission for the recovery of nationally endangered wildlife, which would be a body that would help facilitate the development of recovery planning across Canada by many of the responsible jurisdictions and ourselves, to try to collate and get more comprehensive and organized for the recovery of nationally endangered wildlife.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Knutson asked how the legislation has been strengthened from the previous proposal. How do members of the coalition or task force feel about this new legislation around concerns they might have about possible weakening of it compared with what was originally proposed? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. Curtis: It's expected that task force members and others, at some point in the proceedings, will be here to tell you about their concerns and comments.

For those of you who aren't aware, the task force represented a wide cross-section of interest groups, including environmental groups, animal rights groups, wildlife conservation groups, representatives of the forestry industry, the pulp and paper association specifically, the mining sector, oil and gas, agriculture and the fishing industry. Some academics were involved as well. After a fairly lengthy deliberation, they came up with some solid recommendations to the government that are contained in the briefing package at tab 7, I believe.

We have done a bit of an analysis to determine to what extent those task force recommendations have been met and accommodated. I think it's fair to say that we used that report from the task force as the core of our drafting instructions, and we approached cabinet on this earlier in the summer. It's hard to put an actual percentage figure on how many of the task force recommendations have been included in the bill. It depends on to what extent and so on, but if you just enumerate the items, it's most of them, I would say. At least 80% of what was in the task force recommendations are included here.

.0955

We heard from some of the task force members last Thursday morning when we were briefing them on this prior to the tabling. They had the kind of concerns I think you've alluded to already - that COSEWIC's designations one way or another would receive special committee, cabinet or council approval before the legal list was prepared. They were somewhat concerned about that. That was the one area that caused the greatest concern. I think most of them noted major improvements. They were pleased to see things they weren't expecting to see in as much detail as was included, such as civil enforcement measures and the cross-border items. I think they were pleased without the penalty sections, but I think you would do well to hear from the members directly on those points.

Mr. Glen: You mentioned the coalition. I met with two individuals who came on behalf of the coalition, and I think others in the department met with them as well. They advanced a very thoughtful list of concerns and recommendations before the legislation was approved for introduction. The one that I think would still be there, and would have been reflected in today's Globe and Mail editorial, was the concern that the government, in this initiative, hasn't gone far enough in using the full force of federal authority available to them. I'm not here to defend how they interpret the federal powers, but clearly this initiative will advance limited use of criminal law power, and as much as possible, encourage full cooperation by provinces to improve the regime.

A fair view of the coalition would be that we could have been more aggressive than this bill would reflect. I would leave that to the minister to explain, if necessary.

So I think the legislation is more limited than they would have wanted to see.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: From what I understood, COSEWIC had 28 members before, and the legislation limits it to 9. Am I incorrect in that?

Mr. Curtis: You are correct. The current COSEWIC representation is somewhere in the order of 28 members. It includes representatives from each province and territory. It includes representatives who have expertise in a particular groups or species like amphibians or reptiles and so on. It includes some national NGOs. It includes representation from the Canadian Museum of Nature and so on.

The proposition in the new model is that a board of nine individuals be chosen because of their ability to render unbiased decisions - people who have scientific and/or community and traditional knowledge. They would serve as a panel of judges, if I can call them that.

So the kinds of structures we have now would in all likelihood continue to exist in support of the work of COSEWIC as a subcommittee. The COSEWIC board of 9 would still have the 28 to draw on for their expert decisions.

.1000

Mr. Glen: Just to reinforce what Mr. Curtis said, it's on the subcommittees or advisory bodies that.... The source of expertise that now would locate on COSEWIC is not necessarily absent from the future, it would just be ranked in a different way. In terms of the final determination of what they then would recommend forward, you're quite right, the legal structure being proposed will be no more than nine members who will in essence be the COSEWIC members.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was also interested in the delegation of some of the responsibility to first nations communities, especially in the northern area. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? What's going to happen in the future?

Mr. Brackett: There are a number of negotiations underway for comprehensive claims or self-government agreements. Many of those include consideration of wildlife management questions generally, and some include considerations of endangered species-related items.

Each of those comprehensive claims, as they are passed, is the subject of enabling federal legislation. That legislation almost invariably includes a clause that in case of a conflict between this and any other federal legislation, this bill, referring to the comprehensive claim itself, would take precedence. The claims are meant to embody the aboriginal rights referred to in section 35 of the Constitution.

So in those cases where there is a specific authority provided to a wildlife management board, for example, in the Nunavut claim in the eastern arctic, the current Endangered Species Protection Act needs to work with and take into account that provision of the claim in the eastern arctic. Should similar provisions be built into future claims, whether in British Columbia or other portions of the territories, we would establish that kind of cooperative relationship with those boards.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill has a declaration of intent with respect to non-derogation of section 35 rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. In many cases those rights are undefined. Certainly the Sparrow case in the Supreme Court provides the most recent detailed guidance in how those rights would interact with conservation measures that might be proposed under this kind of legislation.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There may be members on the committee who are not familiar with the Sparrow decision. Could you elaborate on that, Mr. Brackett?

Mr. Brackett: I begin to tread on dangerous ground by providing interpretations of Supreme Court judgments. Perhaps I can preface it by saying it's only my understanding as a biologist in the Wildlife Service. The Department of Justice would provide the best interpretation.

Having said that, it's my understanding that in certain cases where infringement on existing rights can be justified, subject to certain tests - one of those tests is for the conservation of wildlife, and another is for human health and safety - in doing so the minister or government must ensure that it has taken its fiduciary responsibilities towards the group seriously. It must show that it is engaged in appropriate consultation, that the infringement on their right is the least infringement necessary to accomplish the stated purpose, and that the stated purpose is a bona fide purpose and the principal purpose.

In this case, for instance, if there was a need to restrict the taking of an endangered species, the killing or gathering or something, it would be necessary to consult with the particular aboriginal group and demonstrate that the restriction on killing or use of that species was necessary to achieve the conservation purposes for which this bill is drawn.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

.1005

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, please.

Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I guess we're all zeroing in on a similar point with respect to how recovery plans and other agreements are going to be finally maintained.

Mr. Glen, you mentioned the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. I noticed that under tab 13 in the national accord, item 4 says the minister will refer any disputes that may arise under this accord to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council for resolution.

Who are, or who will be, the members of that council? Will they in fact accept by good sense and public disclosure what their decisions are? How will they be able to enforce those? Will we, in the last analysis, still have to go to the Supreme Court if there is some dispute? Who will the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council be?

Mr. Glen: You'll have the three federal ministers. The Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister for Canadian Heritage responsible for Canadian Parks potentially are members. You also have provincial ministers. It's not entirely clear what their titles would be across jurisdictions. Some of the provinces' ministers will have portfolios that are multifaceted, but essentially they are the ones who will deal with the wildlife area.

If I can refer to a moment in time, the provincial ministers who would have been at the Charlottetown meeting where the national accord was developed would in fact be by title the same ministers who would sit on this council.

Mr. Finlay: That would be one from each province?

Mr. Glen: That's right, one or more as they wish. Again, that's a question of which hats are trying to find their way into the construct.

In terms of dispute resolution - and I say this without perhaps as much thought as I should to assist and inform you - this is, quite frankly, normally worked out on a federal-provincial domain. They would come together and try to develop a consensus on the approach to be taken. You would hopefully not be putting in train to this council a work program or terms of engagement that become quite litigious. That would be absolutely the wrong approach from what we would want.

David, do you have anything you want to add?

Mr. Brackett: The kind of dispute I think is being referred to in the national accord is not so much a dispute at law as a dispute of interpretation, or if it isn't an oxymoron, a ``dispute of cooperation''. It might be with respect to something like the criteria that would be used. It might be with respect to the membership of a recovery team. It might be with respect to whether a particular province was carrying its weight in terms of a recovery team for which it had a significant portion of the population.

As ministers discussed this matter at Charlottetown it was to provide a clear venue and opportunity to discuss the details of the accord. That's the sense of what they were discussing.

If you look at the list of items that are to be established in complementary legislation and programs, it runs from A through N. The kind of dispute that might arise is whether a particular jurisdiction has provided enough protection in legislation or in programs for the habitat of threatened or endangered species, or has in fact established the appropriate prohibitions on listing, or is dedicating enough resources to getting recovery plans prepared on time.

Mr. Finlay: Would territorial representation be there too?

Mr. Brackett: Yes. The two, and soon to be three, territories are treated as full partners in this process. They have been treated as such in the Wildlife Ministers' Council for some years.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you.

.1010

The Chairman: Thank you. Mrs. Payne, please.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for being late. I just came in from the riding.

The overall comments I have received in my riding on this bill have been favourable. In fact, mostly they're saying it's about time.

I have a couple of concerns. One concern has to do with the jurisdiction in the provinces, and what would happen where there's an industrial development that the province is intent on going ahead with, regardless of what happens to endangered species, whether it's fish, wildlife, flora, fauna, what have you. I'm thinking in particular of the Star Lake project and what has happened there, because there's quite a lot of controversy coming out on that particular project.

I'm also thinking of a native species of Newfoundland, which is the Newfoundland pine marten. There doesn't seem to be enough will on the part of the province to protect that and other species well enough.

Mr. Brackett: Perhaps I could begin by dealing with the assessment question, and then ask Lynda Maltby to deal with the question of the Newfoundland pine marten in particular, and perhaps describe some of the activity that has gone on with respect to that species.

In terms of assessment, the bill does provide a process for developers to notify the federal minister of projects that may have an impact on endangered species, and certainly throughout the bill there are many requirements to make information public so that a responsible project developer and responsible citizens' groups can have access to all of that information and bring it to bear much earlier in the process than sometimes happens now.

The bill also relies on the process, as established under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to provide for the assessment of activities in which the federal government is involved or that are occurring on federal lands. That is part of the intent of the accord in establishing complementary legislative regimes in all of the provinces.

One important feature is that the federal government is committing itself, if this legislation passes, to treating species that are listed by one or more of the provinces with the same degree of protection in that province that the province gives to the species.

Let me try to straighten out that sentence a bit with an example. If we have a species that is not at risk across Canada, but is at risk in a particular province, and the province wishes to provide additional protection, the minister of the province can ask the federal minister to put that species on the federal list for that province. Then all federal activities in the province, including on our federal lands in the province, would treat the species with the same degree of protection that the province was according to it.

For instance, the Newfoundland pine marten is in fact listed by COSEWIC nationally, but even if it weren't, if the provincial minister had done so, he could ask for and get the same level of cooperation from the federal government via this act.

Perhaps I could ask Lynda to explain in more detail the current status of recovery efforts with respect to the Newfoundland pine marten.

Ms Maltby: A recovery team has been put in place for the Newfoundland pine marten for quite a few years. Oscar Forsey is the chair of that recovery team. They have put together a recovery plan to try to look at ways and means to bring the species back from the state it is in right now.

.1015

Part of the problem with the Newfoundland pine marten is that it's very difficult to determine what it'll take to actually bring that particular population back to recovery.

Mrs. Payne: I think that's the concern.

Mr. Maltby: Yes. One of the reasons is the number of problems associated with availability of prey. There is another problem with regard to some of the forest where the Newfoundland pine marten resides. In the recovery plan itself, at least experimentally, they are trying to bring prey species into certain areas to see whether in fact there might be a chance to provide or reintroduce some prey species for the Newfoundland pine marten. It is not just scientifically complex. It is actually quite a lot more complex than that, which has been part of the problem with regard to that particular species.

Mrs. Payne: One more question. You mentioned that this bill would take precedence over other legislation. I'm wondering how it would apply in terms of the protected waters act.

Mr. Brackett: Perhaps I was misunderstood. My comment was that the legislation implementing comprehensive claims takes precedence. This bill does not maintain a particular precedence.

Mrs. Payne: What happens, then, in terms of the protected waters act and this legislation? How would the two integrate? What would take precedence?

Mr. Brackett: I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what piece of federal legislation you're referring to.

Mrs. Payne: I'm thinking of the protected waters act, which is the specific act that primarily engages the northern areas, the Arctic waters, I suspect.

Mr. Brackett: There is a Northern Inland Waters Act, if I recall correctly. I'm not familiar enough with the terms of that act, which is primarily related to land use and pollution control.... The principle -

Mrs. Payne: I'm thinking more in relation to, I suppose, fish, waterfowl -

The Chairman: Madam Payne is referring to clauses 105 and 106 in reference to Bill C-62, the act respecting fisheries, and how, when read, that will be integrated in this bill.

Is that what you're referring to?

Mrs. Payne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brackett: Steve, do you want to speak to that consequential amendment provision?

Mr. Curtis: The two articles you referred to, clauses 105 and 106, are identified as items for conditional amendment. This is in recognition of the fact that the House has the Canada Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act in its amended form before it. As certain specific aspects become clarified within those two pieces of legislation, that will affect the wording for this act, and that's the intent of having this conditional amendment clause here. I don't think it speaks to the specific question you raised about the protected waters act, but we can endeavour to look into that, if you like, and get more information.

Mrs. Payne: Yes, if you would, please.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Payne.

I have a few questions. On this matter of the protection of species by virtue of international treaties, let us say, let me put the question this way: is there going to be a different treatment of a fox, a hare or a rabbit living near the Canadian-American borders than there will be of a similar animal living in the Georgian Bay district and therefore not benefiting from the fact that it is near a border and therefore unable to cross a border?

.1020

Mr. Brackett: I myself may sometimes get too complicated in my thinking about it, but in general the question of which species may be covered by the cross-boundary provision will operate at the species level or at the level of a fairly large population. So the question of whether individuals of that particular group live near the border wouldn't normally be the determining factor. The determining factor would be whether the species in some component in fact crossed the border.

That may become complicated if you are dealing with a distinct population of the species, but I think perhaps the more important point -

The Chairman: So you don't see any disadvantage in moving away from the border.

Mr. Brackett: No, sir, in fact, I don't. The principal reason I say that with some degree of confidence is that I have confidence in the provinces implementing their side of the bargain, as it were, in the national accord. If and when that occurs, any species anywhere in Canada will have a very similar level of protection in terms of complementary legislation and programs, and it will not be necessary for the federal government to exercise extraordinary authority to protect that species. It would be a matter of course under either federal or provincial legislation.

The Chairman: So I gather from your comments that what will be guiding the implementation of this legislation will be the concern for the survival of the species rather than jurisdiction and the assertion of jurisdiction, the assertion of turf.

Mr. Brackett: The minister has said several times that in putting this legislation forward and in reaching the accord with the provinces it's been a matter of all of the jurisdictions putting species first.

The Chairman: There's a very intriguing section - clauses 77 to 90 - under the headings ``Offences and Punishment'' and ``Alternative Measures''. I notice there is a reference on page 41 to a schedule to be kept secret.

Can you give us an example that illustrates what all that procedure is about? It makes very intriguing reading, I must say.

Mr. Curtis: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman...?

The Chairman: Starting with clause 77 and culminating with clause 90, the first heading is ``Offences and Punishment'', the next subtitle is ``Alternative Measures'', and finally, in clause90, we come across, to paraphrase, a schedule that's to be kept secret, in reference to the preceding paragraphs, of course. Can you illustrate it? It's clause 90 on page 41.

Mr. Brackett: Perhaps I could point out that both the civil action components and the alternative measures components of this bill have been developed in very close cooperation and in parallel with the amendments we might reasonably expect in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. So some of these provisions may, on first glance, seem more in keeping with the kind of industrial activity that is regulated by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In this case, the schedule to an agreement, we have to think of what an alternative measure is. That's the opportunity for the Crown and a person who has been charged with an offence to enter into an agreement that would result in a stay of proceedings as far as court goes, but which would be beneficial - if carried out - for the environment as a result.

The Chairman: Can you give us an example?

.1025

Mr. Brackett: Yes. For instance, if a party were charged with an offence under this act for destruction of residences of a certain listed species, but then the agreement was reached to provide significant habitat mitigation or habitat enhancement activities, that charge might be stayed in favour of the completion of those habitat mitigation or enhancement activities.

For instance, if there had been some illegal cutting of trees on a Department of National Defence base and the mitigation was the replanting of significant areas or the acquisition of some protected areas - land that would be put into a national wildlife area or something - that might be negotiated.

The question of what might be kept secret is defined earlier in that section with respect to trade secrets; financial, commercial or technical information; or information that would be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations. It is my understanding that those kinds of clauses are relatively standard in terms of those kinds of agreements, and the definitions of what constitutes that kind of information are drawn from experience in a number of other acts, such as the Access to Information Act and so on, as well.

The Chairman: I'm only concerned here about the fact that some important information may be kept from the public by people trying to take advantage of these clauses for other purposes. I'm a bit uneasy about this whole approach. The example you have given has certainly not dispelled my uneasiness, but you may want to elaborate in future so as to give us convincing examples.

Mr. Glen: We will take notice of that quite constructively, but we'll also try to be more complete in informing how it works in other federal laws so there is an appreciation of the marriage across from other federal statutes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Following the earlier line of questions by Madam Guay and Mr. Adams on the provinces implementing their legislation to mirror the federal legislation, did I understand correctly that you expect that process to be completed within roughly the next ten years?

Mr. Brackett: No, sir, I would expect that process of provinces establishing legislation to be in place much sooner than that. I was trying to answer a question of what I expected the world to look like in ten years. There is no deadline in the national accord for when this will happen, partly because ministers are cognizant of the fact that legislative schedules are the prerogative of governments and parliaments across the land. Even at the Charlottetown meeting, for instance, the Government of Yukon was not represented, as it had held its election the day before. These kinds of schedules will come into play.

The Chairman: Approximately when can we expect the mirror legislation to be in place across the country and the territories?

Mr. Brackett: As I said, there is no deadline, but the minister has made direct reference to the fact that he and the government are proposing a three-year review for the first time period here in order that Parliament can have an early chance to access how that entire program is coming.

The Chairman: So you're non-committal on a deadline on this aspect, or you'd prefer to not give one.

Mr. Glen: In fairness to my colleagues and myself, the answer should rest with other jurisdictions.

The Chairman: Yes, but you met in Charlottetown and they might have given you indication as to how they intend to proceed. The meeting was very recent.

Mr. Glen: Yes, and the commitment of jurisdictions was real. In taking that on, I'm quite certain our minister will be advocating a fairly active effort to complete the framework.

.1030

The Chairman: That leads to the next question. After promulgation of the bill, what plan for public education do you have in mind in order to generate pressure at the public level as well vis-à-vis jurisdictions that have not yet passed mirror legislation?

Mr. Glen: That's a tricky one to answer.

The Chairman: It's a very straightforward question, Mr. Glen. It's not tricky.

Mr. Glen: Well, it's tricky in the sense of whether we then would be mounting a national interest campaign to pressure the provinces.

The Chairman: Then I'm sorry, because I didn't express myself clearly. What kind of public education campaign do you have in mind that will indicate the purposes of this legislation, what it aims to do, and what it cannot achieve unless provinces also do their part?

Mr. Glen: Just before Mr. Brackett answers, I will certainly want to ensure, in terms of working with my counterparts, that it's not simply a federal public education campaign. We will engage the provinces and take them quite genuinely to their -

The Chairman: But after the bill is promulgated tomorrow, what will happen in terms of public education?

Mr. Glen: That's fair. David.

Mr. Brackett: I don't have a document I can table that is a communications plan for after promulgation. Certainly, the materials we've put out to date have talked about that kind of need. We're making things such as this summary in the act of endangered species available to a very broad group of people. More than 8,000 letters have come to the minister's office on this topic since the consultation process began, and a very lengthy mailing list is receiving this information directly.

We've also linked it into Canada's Green Lane on the information highway, our Internet access site, and made it a key feature of that site. It includes not just the bill as it was tabled in the House of Commons but also a significant amount of background material. That is being increasingly used by schools, for instance, as an information source for projects. We find it more and more useful to refer students who write in to this kind of access, and they use it very adeptly in terms of information.

We do not have current plans for significant advertising campaigns and so on. Those campaigns are very expensive and we've instead put resources into developing the structures of the bill and getting recovery plans and status reports done.

Mr. Glen: I think an important part of public education is maintaining, for public consumption, a full awareness of where we are engaged in recovery planning and making progress. Parallel to that would be identifying where the multi-jurisdictions have to continue to work together in advance.

But I think some of the public education has to be in the actual progress. As opposed to advocacy of what we can do with this, what we are doing with this legislation will probably make the point to community interest groups and the coalition that has quite a strong and positive initiative to move the agenda. It will want to advance that as well. But I think a lot of the public education will be in the actual implementation of what's required under this initiative.

The Chairman: That may be true. Keep in mind that Canada Gazette is certainly not the preferred reading of most Canadians. A page in the computer might be accessible to a larger number, but it will still leave a fairly large number of Canadians out if this legislation is not explained, once it is passed.

Perhaps you might consider letting the committee have a communications plan, before we conclude our work, indicating your thoughts on what that communications plan might be about, and see whether we can also offer you some suggestions. Would this be agreeable?

.1035

Mr. Glen: That would be fine.

The Chairman: Finally, on the benchmark for survival, were we talking about the definition of survival at the beginning? If there are any gaps between the international definitions and the definitions in this bill for threatened, extirpated and vulnerable, please bring those to our attention.

Mr. Brackett: I'd be glad to provide a comparison of the various schedules. The intent under any schedule is that you may classify any animal or plant under one of the categories. In this sense there is no gap per se, but there may be a difference of thresholds. I would be pleased to provide a comparison of the thresholds under the IUCN at-risk categories.

Bear in mind that the final thresholds for this bill will not be set until COSEWIC has its opportunity. I think we probably have adequate information on hand to do so with respect to Australia and the United States. These are two other examples of legislation in federal states.

The Chairman: This would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Brackett.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I would ask you to turn to tab 7, international obligations. I guess it would be hard to argue there isn't a need for this kind of legislation. My concern lies in the area of how we treat migratory species that travel back and forth from one international zone to another. For example, there is the Mexican situation where we have species that come under threat because of adverse environmental practices in certain parts of the world other than in Canada.

If you look under item 10, international obligations, it talks about the conclusion of agreements we could make with other countries. But in 10.1.1. you require the minister to initiate, coordinate and participate in international species recovery. Then it says the minister could establish necessary regulatory measures to ensure actions taken in Canada do not adversely affect the Canadian threatened or endangered species shared with another country or across Canada's borders.

I don't get a clear understanding of what this paragraph says. If we find non-cooperation by these other international bodies, what can the minister here do? We can protect a species in Canada, but we can't protect the species beyond our own borders. Am I correct in my understanding of this, or am I missing some other points of a power we have that I fail to understand?

Mr. Brackett: The question of extraterritorial application of domestic laws is one occupying a great deal of international attention these days. In fact tab 7 is the report of the task force and does not necessarily reflect the government's bill as tabled in Bill C-65.

I think the question of 10.1.1. was attempting to get at situations where Canadians operating in another jurisdiction or Canadians operating at home were doing something causing an adverse effect on a species outside Canada. It was a recommendation on their part that there be authority granted in the bill to influence the activities within Canada or activities of Canadians outside Canada. This question is also being debated in some detail with respect to possible amendments of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for instance.

.1040

The ability to regulate the activities in other states is not there. This is where mutual obligations through treaties or agreements come into play, or in fact simply the provision of information.

I could give you an example of the latter case. This is something that has happened over the last two years. We became aware of deaths of the swainson's hawk, a particular raptor managed in Canada by the province. It migrates long distances down to Argentina, where it winters. There were significant kills of the bird in Argentina because of the application and misapplication of a particular pesticide.

We provided one of our scientists to assist in Argentina on a short-term basis, and provided some cash to allow them to pursue a research program. When he visited the country, our scientist, Dr. Pierre Mohnen, was able to convince their regulatory authority to change regulations in Argentina to mirror more closely the kind of restrictions and application we have in Canada.

This is not extraterritorial application of Canadian legislation. It is an application of Canadian expertise the Argentinian government decided to take up and use to change its own regulations.

Mr. Steckle: Would it be fair, then, to say in cases where we've exercised our authority in those areas, those countries have been favourably disposed to our interventions on behalf of a species? Do you find there are still areas where people don't have the same regard for these species as we do here?

Mr. Brackett: The treatment of wildlife is a highly variable matter in different cultures and legal systems around the world. The treatment can vary widely, depending on the perceived value of a species in a particular culture or economic system.

Whenever we've had the opportunity to work with countries, to bring good science to bear and show the direct links between activities and the impact on a species, this information has been well received. It has not always been acted on to the same degree we would have wished.

There are also discussions where this doesn't always happen in Canada, or it takes a long time for it to happen in Canada. Certainly with respect, for instance, to the regulation of a pesticide like carbofuran, building the case in Canada took many years prior to the regulatory action.

Mr. Steckle: I have one final point. I think the area where rural Canada perhaps finds itself questioning the act would be in the area of property rights. We understand this is an area that has only jurisdiction over federal property where the provinces and territories, of course, control their own properties.

What if a particular species were known to be not living on federal property? Let's assume we are talking about the burrowing owl. I don't know where it makes its home, but what if it had found a place on the prairies that was a privately owned area, a large acreage owned by private individuals? If we deemed this species to be an endangered species, which we have, how would we deal with this particular scenario?

Mr. Brackett: The burrowing owl is a particularly interesting case. The burrowing owl is one of those cross-boundary species. It's an international cross-boundary species, so in the first instance, in Canada it's managed by the provincial government. In fact, we could describe what has happened with the burrowing owl. Its decline was noticed, a status report was prepared, it was listed by COSEWIC and a recovery team was formed.

Lynda, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the recovery team is led by-

Ms Maltby: One of our guys.

Mr. Brackett: A federal employee. It includes provincial government employees and it includes non-government people. We came to a conclusion early on that protection of nesting sites was important, and began a program called Operation Burrowing Owl in conjunction with landowners. It is a voluntary association. In fact, there was a representative of that group with the minister at the press conference when the announcement of tabling in the House was announced.

.1045

Each of the provinces passed legislation with respect to killing burrowing owls and provided that kind of protection. Early on we found the application of a particular pesticide, in this case carbofuran, was one of the contributing factors, so it fell to the federal government to try to work that through. In the end we passed additional regulations eliminating a lot of the uses of that particular pesticide.

Environment Canada has also tracked burrowing owls to their winter habitat and have had a scientist working to provide additional information and habitat protection for them in Mexico, where some of the owls that summer in Canada pass the winter.

So that kind of cooperative action comes into play. If the provinces in question had not chosen to participate and this bill was in place, the federal minister could declare that international cross-boundary species as needing additional protection and could bring into play those protections and prohibitions that have already been brought into play by the provinces. It's that kind of cooperative action that comes into play.

Mr. Steckle: One point further, again coming back to the private ownership of land. If the natural nesting place for these burrowing owls were to be found to be on private property, how do you deal with that issue? That is the concern rural people in Canada have in terms of the legislation. We all want to see the species protected, but how far do we go in taking away property rights to do that?

It's a very tall order, but I'd like to have your response on that.

Mr. Brackett: The bill speaks to that in several different ways, depending on the species involved, but it does deal with threatened and endangered species, the two categories at most risk. It prohibits the destruction of the residence of individuals of the species. In the case of the burrowing owl, if the federal government had decided, and this bill were in place, it could make the wilful destruction of individuals of the species, or the wilful destruction of their habitat, an offence under this act. That would apply, then, to the burrows of the burrowing owl and to the immediate areas of land necessary for that species.

In the same way, it would apply to migratory bird habitat anywhere in Canada, whether it's an international cross-border species or not, and to fisheries habitat anywhere in Canada, because those authorities are available under the Fisheries Act. In that sense significant portions of the bill do apply on private lands.

There is an incentive that helps push along participation in and development of recovery plans in that those automatic prohibitions come into play and remain in play unless and until they are modified by a recovery plan. For example, it may be that in developing a recovery plan for burrowing owls the recovery team proposes that it would be more effective to set aside a protected area and to develop that area specifically to make it attractive to burrowing owls than to try to continue to protect individual single burrows that were spread out over a larger area - hypothetical only. That being the case, it might make that recommendation in the recovery plan and that would modify the automatic prohibitions.

In other cases, limited trophy hunting, for instance, on some species, with the returns going to local community management, for instance of wood bison, may form an appropriate part of a recovery plan, and that would be allowed after the recovery plan was accepted.

.1050

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson: I'd like to ask a question that may appear at first glance to be coming out of left field, but I'll ask it anyway. Recently I listened to a radio interview of a citizens' group that was concerned about the thousands of birds that are flying into skyscrapers and tall buildings. Is there anything in the act that...?

Let's say we could make a case that some of the bird population is endangered or threatened and is being killed by...part of the cause of the problem is that people are leaving their lights on. Is there anything in the act that would allow someone to, say, go to court and get an order to force people to turn their lights out or put blinds on their windows?

Mr. Brackett: That's a very interesting question.

Mr. Knutson: Apparently it's a big problem.

Mr. Brackett: It certainly is a problem during migratory periods in both directions. The offences with respect to migratory birds are established as strict liability offences. It is not necessary to prove intent to lay a charge. Later in the bill, in clause 81, I think, it indicates that due diligence is a defence. The Crown would take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to lay a charge.

So with respect to those kills in terms of large office buildings and so on, one would have to establish that the building owner was exercising due diligence to not have that take place. The success of the charge would depend on being able to show reasonable expectation that the building owner knew what he should be doing. It moves it a little bit away from a strict liability offence and closer to a wilful offence. It would be an interesting test to pursue.

Mr. Knutson: Do you think it might be appropriate to start with buildings owned by the federal government?

Mr. Brackett: Yes, sir.

Mr. Knutson: Since the federal government's all-knowing.

Mr. Brackett: I don't feel that way most days, sir.

Yours is a good point. Quite a large volunteer program is being developed to educate building owners about this.

Ms Maltby: To clarify that, when a recovery plan is developed and it says in the recovery plan that buildings in certain areas would have to cut off their lights, then you would have a little further clarification of what would be expected for those birds.

Mr. Glen: I think it comes back to a point you've made, Mr. Caccia. It's not that wild and wingy a scenario.

I think your example's a good one. It may be very much part of the public education aspect of not how do you deal with things to stay within the law, but how do you deal with things in order to protect endangered species and get the public to understand the degree to which the engagement of humans into the natural environment is creating problems. Public education shouldn't be on how to comply with the law but how to conduct yourself to protect species. It's a fair point, and it might go back to what you were saying earlier.

The Chairman: We have to relinquish the room in a few minutes, so one final question, if I may.

Mr. Forseth, I'll put my question after you.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): On page 15, subclause 34(4) says,

An emergency order must include provisions regulating or prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the critical habitat of the species if the responsible minister, based on the advice of COSEWIC, determines that there is an imminent threat to that habitat.

Based on what I've heard, I'm wondering if privately owned ranchland would fall under this, that there could be a prohibition that no longer can the cattle graze because the grazing activity and the walking activity of those domestic animals will ruin the habitat for some species on private land. What you have said here is that such is the case, and if that is the case, I'm wondering what the need is for provincial jurisdiction.

.1055

Mr. Curtis: The application of that particular provision is modified by the words in the application clause, clause 3. In fact the prohibition clause and the clause pertaining to emergencies are all subject to the wording in the application clause, clause 3. In fact, these provisions you've referred us to, on the ability to set out orders to protect critical habitat, apply to that habitat insofar as it occurs on federal lands, not to the private ranch lands you referred to.

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Steckle was making the point about how these things extend into private land, and you were saying they do.

Mr. Curtis: If the species on the private land is a species that is otherwise managed by the federal government, such as a migratory bird or a species managed under the authority of the Federal Fisheries Act, then, yes, there can be some aspects that would apply to those private lands; otherwise, no.

The Chairman: One final question before we adjourn. When the wildlife ministers met in Prince Edward Island, was there any discussion about species now covered by the provincial authorities exclusively and how they should be handled?

Mr. Brackett: I'm sorry. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by species covered exclusively by provincial -

The Chairman: Perhaps my first question should be this. Are there at present species that are covered exclusively by certain provincial jurisdictions in those four provinces where there is legislation?

Mr. Brackett: Any species that is regulated by a province is also a question of concern to the federal government if it occurs on federal lands. Only if there are species that are regulated and that do not occur in any way, shape, or form on federal lands.... That's not really an analysis we've done in detail on that clause.

But the bill also contains a provision that allows a provincial minister to request the federal minister to list, under the proposed federal act, a species that is covered, if you will, by a provincial act and yet is not caught by COSEWIC at the national level. For instance, there may not be any concern for wild garlic at the national level but there is a concern for wild garlic in Quebec. If the Quebec minister lists that species in the Quebec act, he or she can also request the federal minister to provide that same level of protection for the species on federal lands within Quebec.

The Chairman: Right. This is for additional protection. But in cases where a species is already covered by provincial legislation and this species is on federal land, would that be interpreted by a provincial government as an intrusion into their present jurisdiction?

Mr. Brackett: No. It is specifically for that reason that the provision was made to allow the provincial minister to request the federal minister to include the species in the federal act.

The Chairman: Which clause is that?

Mr. Brackett: Could I get back to you with the specific reference? I'm afraid with the renumbering I'm not yet up to speed.

Mr. Curtis: It's subclause 30(3).

.1100

The Chairman: All right.

It's now 11 a.m. We've had a good session.

Mr. Glen: Mr. Chairman, thank you for today. Our understanding is that we will have officials come tomorrow to give further background briefings specific to recovery planning and to the listing work with COSEWIC. There will be a different representation here tomorrow. Lynda and Steven will be here, but David and I won't be, if that's acceptable to you.

The Chairman: That's fine.

We thank you very much. It was a very informative morning.

This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page