[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 19, 1996
.1126 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you as representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. We do not have your names, so if you don't mind, please introduce yourselves one by one. Please go ahead, and then we'll have the benefit of your views on the legislation.
Mr. Jim Turner (Director, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): I'm Jim Turner from Alberta.
Mr. Tim Andrew (Director, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): I'm Tim Andrew, and I'm also from Alberta.
Mr. Yves Ruel (Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): I'm Yves Ruel.
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Vice-Chair, National Agriculture Environment Committee): I'm Geoff Wilson. I'm a small fruit and vegetable farmer in Ontario.
Ms Sheila Forsyth (Executive Director, National Agriculture Environment Committee): I'm Sheila Forsyth. I was the representative on the task force for the National Agriculture Environment Committee and the CCA.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Who would like to start? Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. Tim and myself are cattle producers and third-generation ranchers and landowners in Alberta. We'd like to thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on behalf of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
We have a number of serious concerns regarding the proposed Endangered Species Protection Act, and we should point out that we also endorse the presentation the National Agriculture Environment Committee will be giving here later.
I would like to start with a few summary points we feel are important to the discussion. Cattle producers own and manage extensive areas in the settled regions of Canada, which are home to a large variety of wildlife species, including a number that are threatened and endangered. We believe it's been clearly demonstrated in Canada and elsewhere that wildlife and wildlife habitats cannot be effectively protected on private land without the willing cooperation of the landowner.
Cattle producers have a history of protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats on their land. They have worked in partnership with conservation groups and government agencies in a number of successful programs to protect species and ecosystems.
The protection of wildlife habitat on their land comes at a cost to cattle producers. These costs include income and opportunity losses, and also increased costs resulting from wildlife damage and public access. While most cattle producers are prepared to voluntarily make a contribution to wildlife protection, any legislation that forces them to forgo income or increase their costs must include a provision for compensation for those losses.
The legislation before this committee represents a U.S.-type approach to endangered species. It is questionable how effective this approach has been and at what cost it has been arrived at. It relies heavily on regulation and enforcement and contains very little to encourage voluntary cooperation and partnerships. In our view, the legislation in its current form will actually create conflict between landowners and conservation groups and will be detrimental to the future of wildlife on private lands.
To the extent that the bill applies to activities on private land, the enforcement provisions, and especially the ability of individuals to seek their own remedies, will discourage producers from protecting wildlife and habitats and will penalize the producers who do. It is essential that the process of designating species and the development of recovery programs include a review of the impacts of those actions on private landowners, and also ways of mitigating those impacts, including compensation.
We are opposed in principle to the delegation of the proper responsibilities of government in enforcing legislation of this kind to individual members of society. In our view, this provision will lead to conflict among interested groups, confusion, cost, and endless litigation between various parties.
.1130
I'd like to provide some background on the involvement of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. We represent about 100,000 beef cattle producers across Canada. This is the largest single sector of Canadian agriculture, supplying 18% of all farm cash income in 1995.
In total, the industry contributes almost $20 billion to the domestic economy. It also contributes $1.2 billion annually to Canada's trade balance through exports of beef and live cattle.
Cow-calf production is the basis of the beef cattle industry. Cow-calf production makes use of large areas of land that are unsuitable for crop production and are often still in or close to their natural state. These areas are home to large varieties of animal and plant species, some of them endangered and threatened.
Within the settled areas of Canada, cattle producers probably own or control more land suitable for wildlife than any other sector and necessarily have an extremely important role to play in the successful programs to protect endangered species and to keep other species from becoming threatened.
We believe the following two statements are key to any government's attempt to effectively protect wildlife within the settled areas of Canada: endangered and threatened species cannot be effectively or efficiently protected on private land without the willing cooperation of the landowner; and cattle producers own and manage large areas of land within the settled areas of Canada that are home to a variety of wildlife, including species that are threatened and endangered. We also believe the large majority of cattle producers are committed to protecting the natural areas they use, including wildlife. The fact that land owned and managed by cattle producers is often targeted for legislation protecting it is testimony to the responsible management of those producers. In fact, many cattle producers resent the implication that somehow they're no longer able or willing to provide the protection that they have clearly given to this point.
Cattle producers have cooperated in a number of joint projects to improve wildlife habitat and protect specific species. Such programs include those operated by Ducks Unlimited, under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and Operation Burrowing Owl on the prairies. The essential elements of both of these successful programs are that they are voluntary and cooperative, with equal participation by producers and conservation groups.
Beyond these coordinated programs, large numbers of individual producers independently protect areas for wildlife habitats. Where there are specific species at risk, producers are generally willing to take whatever action is necessary to maintain them, once they're aware of the concern.
It must be recognized that these protective measures come at a cost to the producers involved. Costs include loss of income due to land being set aside or not used to its full potential; loss of capital value because of constraints on use; feed loss to wildlife; predator losses; and other less obvious costs caused as the result of increased public access to areas set aside for wildlife. These costs include increased risk of fire; animals being harassed by dogs and people; gates left open; and deliberate vandalism.
There's also a growing problem of liability. Most cattle producers are prepared to carry some of the burden, especially when they have undertaken it on a voluntary basis. However, it must be recognized that these costs are being borne by one small sector for the benefit of society as a whole. If society is going to force landowners to incur these costs, as proposed in some sections of this bill, then society must be prepared to pay compensation to those being forced to bear them.
The issue of compensation for costs on private land, incurred as a result of the legislative protection for endangered species, is basic to the position of the cattle producers. Unless this issue is addressed in the bill, it will lead to ongoing conflicts over wildlife protection and to protracted court battles. We have watched the Americans deal with this issue over the years in very expensive legal wrangling.
Clearly if there's no compensation available, legislated restraints on use and the possible injunctions against normal farming activities by special interest groups will actually penalize those who have voluntarily tried to protect wildlife. It will force all landowners to seriously consider ways of reducing their exposure to the legislative actions.
The obvious and cheapest route would be to eliminate wildlife habitats on their land, specifically habitats that are attractive to species that could at some point become listed as endangered. This is what has happened in many portions of the United States as a result of their legislation, and they are now looking for more cooperative solutions.
.1135
The possibility of legal action and economic losses arising from these legislative actions could force cattle producers to consider eliminating wildlife habitats on their land, especially those habitat species listed under the act.
I believe cattle producers would act more favourably to a carrot than to the stick.
Mr. Andrew: I'm a third-generation rancher. My family operates on 17,000 acres of native grass, some cultivated grass, and tame grass as well. We have over 30 of the listed species that make their lives on our ground. So we're very concerned about how this act is going to affect our day-to-day operations.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has carefully reviewed the proposed legislation and has sought both legal and scientific advice. We have some general comments. We do not like the overall tone and approach of this bill. In our view, it leans much too heavily on a regulated and punitive approach and far too little on incentives and voluntary cooperation.
This approach is unsuitable for dealing with the settled areas of Canada used by a relatively large number of small agricultural producers. We depend on the land for our livelihood. As we've already stated, the heavy dependence on regulation and enforcement will create the opposite result from what is intended and will encourage landowners to get rid of species that might be listed.
We recommend that the bill be amended to recognize the need to build support for species protection on the large areas of land already utilized for other purposes. The recognition should be built around the concept of incentives and cooperation, rather than regulation and punishment.
In the settled areas of the country, it is impossible to deal with the measures to protect wildlife species without considering the economic and social consequences of those actions. The bill makes no reference to such consequences. It contains no mitigating measures, in particular compensation for costs borne by specific sectors of society on behalf of the society as a whole.
We recommend that the bill address the social and economic consequences of its requirements and provide for compensation to those who incur increased costs or reduced incomes as a result. We suggest that the following be added to the preamble:
- That actions taken under this act must take into account the social and economic consequences
of these actions on those who are affected.
- This statement will be complementary to the government's stated commitment to sustainable
development.
The bill intrudes into areas traditionally reserved to the provinces. We question the constitutionality of these sections. More importantly, we suggest this type of development creates uncertainty and overlap, which can only harm the real objectives of the legislation, namely the protection of wildlife species. We recommend that the sections of the act intruding on provincial areas of responsibility be amended.
We have very serious questions about the provision allowing individuals or groups to initiate their own legal actions where they feel governments have been remiss. We suggest the adequate protection of all wildlife species will depend on the cooperative and committed action by all stakeholder groups, in particular those who own and manage the land.
The opportunity for one stakeholder group to initiate action that could significantly damage the interests of other stakeholders will do nothing to foster such feelings of cooperation. In fact, the bill encourages the development of environmental vigilantes. This appears to be an attempt to avoid the responsibility and cost of proper policing activities done by the state.
We question the grounds for allowing such actions. We are not convinced the legislation has sufficient means to stop irresponsible or frivolous action. If the government is going to encourage individual Canadians to take over the role of government in enforcing legislation of this nature, then provisions must be made for those affected to be able to recover all the costs they incur as the result of a frivolous action.
Perhaps a requirement of the act could be for an individual to post a bond prior to initiating such an action. Therefore, only the very serious would be encouraged to initiate such an action. We recommend the bill be amended to either remove the ability of individuals and groups to take their own legal actions or to include provision for all costs to be recovered by those who are affected by such actions, if they are ruled to be unnecessary.
.1140
We believe the penalties proposed are all out of proportion to the offences laid out in the act. When one considers that the act allows for the penalties to be compounded by time and by the number of individual species affected, we have a situation where someone who turns one's cows out to graze on a piece of ground they actually own may well find themselves in jail for a longer term than if they had committed murder.
We believe that the term ``residence'' needs to be more closely defined. In particular, there is a need to ensure that residence only applies to a recognizable physical feature that has been created by the species and that this facility be currently occupied by that species.
Honourable committee, you have the opportunity to design legislation that ensures that, through mutual respect and cooperation, the needs of the most fragile of our wildlife species may be met. The proposed legislation will at best bring about compliance, but not the wilful activism needed for endangered species conservation to be successful. You have the opportunity to bring the owners and managers of a large portion of the land where these species live...if you can respect our needs. Through mutual respect and cooperation, endangered species conservation can be achieved.
This opportunity is yours, and I hope you do the best in your deliberations.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Ruel: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. CFA president Jack Wilkinson sends his regrets. He has just returned from Rome, where he participated as part of the official Canadian delegation at the Food and Agriculture Organization summit on food security, and is unable to be here this morning.
The CFA appreciates the intent of Bill C-65. At the same rate and proportion as other Canadians, farmers want to protect and, where possible, re-establish endangered species. Unfortunately, CFA cannot support the provisions of the -
[Translation]
The Chairman: You may speak in French if you like.
Mr. Ruel: I will speak in French in the second part of my presentation.
The Chairman: It's as you wish.
Mr. Ruel: Thank you.
[English]
Unfortunately, CFA cannot support the provisions of the legislation, as they stand. A piece of legislation will not save even one endangered species. People will do that, particularly people who are landowners or managers, of whom farmers are a large proportion.
Bill C-65 does not encourage people to do the right thing. In fact, it concentrates on the methodology for accusing and prosecuting people. A solid one-third of the bill is devoted to this.
Another large chunk of the bill is spent on enshrining in law a complicated bureaucratic system for dealing with endangered species. This system will inevitably be expensive to operate. We know there is no new money for the implementation of this legislation. The funds will have to come from existing programs within Environment Canada. It is not much of a leap to say that functional programs with good track records will be raided to fund a system that may make little difference.
There is no doubt that endangered species legislation could, in theory, invoke the peace, order and good government clause. There is a chance that it would survive a constitutional challenge. There is also no doubt in our minds that it would not save an additional species.
What is required is a real and cooperative buying into a national framework agreement or accord that would permit the best use of present and future resources, and include not only government but also private sector groups and individuals. At the moment, what we have in this legislation is an accusation in advance of anyone who uses the land to make a living.
[Translation]
To be fair, there is need for change in the present system. It is clear that the functioning of COSEWIC requires an injection of funds to do its work more comprehensively and efficiently. It is also clear that there needs to be a reordering of priorities which would recognize the role of habitat more appropriately.
The present legislation does the first. It does not do the latter. The result, once again, is that we will concentrate on individual specimens as potential museum pieces, not as living organisms that require the appropriate places to be in order to survive and thrive.
.1145
Also, while there is a process outlined to develop recovery teams, these teams do not include the stakeholders directly. Stakeholders are relegated to consultation status. In other words, a landowner or manager can watch what will be done to their land but they cannot participate in the decision making.
A further concern with legislation is that provisions surrounding cross-border and interprovincial species and the intersection with existing federal responsibilities, such as the migratory birds provisions, are not clear.
If there is to be strong federal legislation, landowners need to know what the rules are and this cannot be demands to just stop what you are doing until we figure it out.
We wish to make the following succinct points: the legislation should not apply to private lands, especially in the manner which this legislation appears to, that is in an ad hoc way that will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, there must be recognition of the positive roles that co-operative action and individual action of private citizens play in the protection and survival of endangered species.
Government cannot do it all. Indeed, in this case, government may not be able to do very much on its own. There must be recognition that there are socio-economic implications to the enforcement of the legislation. The old adage is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We don't want the endangered species situation to be like that.
Farmers are ready to do their part. They want to be approached, though, as intelligent human beings with a contribution to make, not as potential criminals. As a member of the National Agriculture and Environment Committee, CFA endorses NAEC's detailed brief. We urge you to follow the recommendations it contains.
If you have any questions, our NAEC colleagues will be happy to answer them. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ruel.
[English]
Our next speaker is Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. A comment made this morning was incorrect, and it should be corrected. From the 1971 to 1991 farm census, improved farm land decreased by 1%, as opposed to increasing. One could argue that this happened for a variety of reasons. The pressures of commodities, taking fragile or non-productive lands out of production, as well as urban pressure are certainly rational reasons for that. But the idea that improved farm land is increasing in Canada is factually incorrect.
We have some comments on the general tone of the bill and specific things we'd like to articulate on certain aspects of the bill. Also, we have a report from the National Agriculture Environment Committee that's available to you all here.
NAEC members want to keep something in mind. As we discuss how this legislation should be applied, we cannot forget some common goals, the basic premise: we all want to protect endangered species. An open and transparent process is absolutely essential for this bill to be operational. We must find an effective way to cooperatively identify, recover and protect species. Further, we must avoid situations where litigation and expensive court proceedings take away money from the species. There needs to be a joint effort to develop ways to ensure the public is well aware of opportunities, and also to promote partnerships.
NAEC wants to ensure that efforts are directed towards conservation activities and not to an overly bureaucratic and expensive process. I would cite the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to bring home that point.
NAEC favours a multi-species, holistic and preventative approach to species conservation. The goal of conservation activities should be to have the Endangered Species Protection Act repealed in several years due to lack of use.
We have some general comments on the bill itself. Public involvement has been acknowledged, but we'd like to see a greater focus on and recognition of the good, voluntary work already being done.
The bill must be strengthened with respect to support for and cooperation and partnerships on a voluntary basis. The lack of specific reference to the concept of compensation is a concern, and it has to be addressed.
The bill, in general ignores the social and economic concept of sustainable development; that has to be remedied.
We are concerned about the apparent focus of the bill on what we view as secondary issues and the possible bureaucratic nature that may take away from efforts on the ground. The tone of the bill seems to always assume that human activities will adversely affect endangered species; this needs to be revised. Further, the tone of the bill comes across as punitive, and there is an accent on heavy regulation.
.1150
We were hoping for a bill that would encourage cooperation, partnerships, and provide incentives, not the scare tactics of huge fines. This may hinder, not encourage, a voluntary buy-in to join federal action on recovery plans.
People can be influenced and make judgments about the importance of an issue by the volume of text describing it. While we hoped that the real reason for the act is the empowerment of COSEWIC, setting into legislation some legal authority to the recovery plan process, the overwhelming portions of the bill dedicated to what we hope will be the very rare occasion of enforcement and laying of charges on endangered species protection is worrying. It could be misconstrued that the purpose of the act is litigation. This should be rectified, and very well clarified as well.
The lack of recognition on partnerships and other activities is crucial for the success of this bill. We would cite the issue of education and awareness as very worrisome as well.
We'll present some highlights of our concern and of what we support in the bill, but we'll refer you to our written brief for more detail on other concerns.
While we applaud subclause 7(2), on agreements with organizations and persons, and we are pleased to see the provision for agreement on partnerships with other people for the protection of species at risk, we would like to work on details of these arrangements - the complementary part of the process - including education, provision for incentives, and, where needed, compensation for loss of the use of key land. This needs to be clarified further.
Let me turn to subclause 8(2). We'd like to read this part of the agreement as a provision for incentives, including compensation. This needs to be explicitly clarified as soon as possible.
On paragraph 36(1)(a), we are pleased to see that prohibitions do not apply to activities that protect human, animal and plant health. It's very necessary for government and others to retain the power to deal with potential threats to the food supply, especially under the Health of Animals and Plant Protection Acts.
Turning to clause 38, we support addressing habitat protection at the recovery plan stage to allow for a thorough investigation of the best approaches to recover the species and to include those species for which habitats cannot be identified but where actions unrelated to habitat are effective in recovering the species. Also, placing action in the recovery plan permits looking for partners. We assume that the reference to identification of critical habitats in the status report is a misrepresentation of the status report headings and that it will be rectified.
What concerns us is what needs to be clarified. The preamble covers every facet of society and every international and national concern about species, but does not recognize the role and importance of sustainable use of the land. We suggest you adopt some of the task force language in this regard and add it to the preamble. In our text we suggest some written comments as well.
We have concerns about some of the definitions, specifically ``critical habitat'' and ``residence'', and, again, these are detailed in our brief.
We are concerned that subclause 3(2), application of the bill, may apply to private land in a federal act, where all along we have been assured that, except on a voluntary basis as part of a partnership agreement for a recovery plan, private lands are not covered by this bill.
Let me turn to subclause 4(1), regarding crown corporations. We have been assured in briefings that the Farm Credit Corporation will retain its status quo, but we would like some further assurance on this, on how and where farm credit lands fit into the picture. It must be recognized that somewhere to the tune of one million acres are under the control and ownership of the Farm Credit Corporation.
With respect to subclause 20(2), on status reports, we do not believe that identification of a critical habitat or threat should be a requirement for the status report. Our understanding is that identification of a critical habitat would delay and hinder listing and that COSEWIC does not have a role to make judgments on threat but only to describe limiting factors that affect the species. Therefore, again, we've suggested a specific text in our brief.
Clause 22 and other clauses dealing with emergency designation and order should be described as the task force indicated, for unusual and extraordinary conditions, so as not to circumvent the ordered and prioritized decisions of COSEWIC.
On clause 31, prohibitions, we're very concerned about the selection of the words in these prohibitions. You may be aware that many of the problems in the United States with regard to harassment of private landowners have been over the definition of ``take''. We would propose, and have stated in previous comments, that there may be a better selection of prohibitions that could be considered, such as those in the Australian act: kill, destroy, damage, collect, trade, keep, or move. In our brief we propose to rewrite these sections.
.1155
The sudden appearance of clause 33 is not a welcome surprise. We would like to have it very well clarified. The intent seems to be to expand this beyond the federal land and other restrictions from clause 3. We assume therefore that this could impinge on private land. We understand that this is based on Criminal Code provisions for cruelty to animals, hence the reference only to animals, and we do not support this inclusion.
Under the recovery plan, subclause 38(2), only governments are identified as cooperators, and other organizations, according to clause 39, are to be consulted. We believe that the other groups must be involved directly in the planning and implementation, i.e., in subclause 38(2), and not just consulted. We would suggest and ask that this be changed.
On clause 46, a permitting system, we have several questions.
In clause 47 we see that there would be the ability to use the permitting systems under the existing acts. Have they been consulted re the workload? In other words, will it happen? Can it happen? Would Environment Canada be setting up a group to issue permits? Is this economical or useful? How would ``affecting'' be defined? There's a positive side to affecting as well. Is this meant here or not? There is no timeframe given for review. Is this an omission? The interaction between exemptions and prohibitions needs to be better detailed.
With regard to clause 49, project review, we're concerned about how this would be implemented, and we need more time to examine the consequences of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act involvement. We presume, again, that this would be on federal lands only.
We have unease with regard to clause 56, application for investigation, and clause 60, endangered species protection action. We are uneasy about the concept of a private citizen doing government's job in ensuring that the bill is complied with. We are also uneasy about the lack of clarity as to where the offence could be taking place. Again, we presume that these provisions will apply to federal land only. This needs to be clarified.
We also feel that tending to the possible investigations would take away funds and energy from the real protection of species. We suggest these sections be struck from the bill.
As for clause 77, offences and punishment, frankly, these fines and possible actions took our breath away with their immensity. Is this necessary? Should this not also be connected to clause 36, to exemptions noted therein? The section numbers for regulations and emergency orders must be put into the text to be clear.
I thank you for your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Ms Forsyth: I'm here to answer questions that come up in regard to the task force and other things.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): I can understand somewhat your concerns as farmers, but I wonder why it is you are concerned about Bill C-65. You know as I do that through this bill, the federal government will try to listen to everyone and please everyone.
During the hearings, it will hear from people who support Bill C-65, and from others who are opposed to it and from still others who support protecting endangered species in Canada, but not on their own lands. This describes your position somewhat. You support the legislation aimed at protecting endangered species in Canada, but feel it should not apply to private lands. If this were the case, the passage of Bill C-65 by the federal government would have no impact whatsoever.
Everyone would be happy: those who have been demanding legislation will have it, and those who are opposed to it will know that it is not applicable and those who do not want the legislation to apply to them will also be satisfied. There is no way of controlling Bill C-65.
It's all well and good to pass a bill, but there needs to be ways of enforcing it. There must also be penalties for those who fail to comply with the legislation.
The federal government must do more than merely pass legislation to satisfy certain people. Endangered species legislation must come with a proper framework for ensuring enforcement and must include penalty provisions.
.1200
If Bill C-65 does not include all of those mechanisms, farmers need not be concerned. The legislation will not apply to private farmers or to others because the federal government will not have the financial resources to hire enforcement officers. Take, for example, road safety. If there are no officers to monitor traffic, road safety regulations will be of no use whatsoever because people will decide for themselves whether or not to obey the traffic lights. The situation would be impossible to control.
The Chairman: Would you like to put your question, Mr. Asselin?
Mr. Asselin: I think the federal government should inform the provinces that it is concerned about protecting endangered species in Canada.
The federal government should ask them to pass legislation in this area within a specific time frame. It should require them to pass legislation, ensure its enforcement and provide for penalties.
For example, Quebec has adopted legislation to protect moose. For the past two years, a ban on the killing of cow moose has been in effect. The deer population in Gaspé Park is also controlled and as a result, overall numbers have increased.
Would you agree to giving the provinces responsibility for enforcing Bill C-65?
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, you're aware, are you not, that a political meeting was held in Charlottetown?
Mr. Asselin: Yes.
The Chairman: A meeting was held, a statement was made and a report was issued.
[English]
Who would like to answer Mr. Asselin's question, please?
Mr. Andrew: Most assuredly, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and all ranchers support the conservation of all wildlife species that occur on the lands we operate on. For the most fragile of those we encourage the cooperative approach, and probably that's going to be the most cost-effective way of conserving those species. When we look at either complying or having the heavy hand of the law come down upon us, we're going to be forced to do the bare minimum, rather than taking the next step and going ahead and taking it upon ourselves to do an even better job. That's where we see the bill as a failure or needing work - the term ``failure'' is too strong.
I would like to answer your question by saying we believe it's a provincial responsibility to be responsible for wildlife. Those are the people who are most closely tied to the land. That's where our lands are managed throughout Canada, and we think that's most important. It's a provincial responsibility.
Clauses where that responsibility can be stepped over - for instance, clauses 33 and 60 - scare us, quite frankly. It takes the control from the people who have traditionally had that responsibility and puts it in the wrong court, in our view.
Maybe some of my other colleagues would like to add to that.
Ms Forsyth: We view the whole process of endangered species or species conservation in general as being complementary amongst many levels. The federal government has a role, and you are here to determine what that role would be relative to federal land and what not. The provincial governments have a role to play. Voluntary people and private-land people have a role to play. We're saying it should be at the level of writing agreements with those people that may involve compensation or contracting, but there are many levels to deal with this and they should be complementary and not overlapping.
We don't disagree that there need to be penalties where necessary. I don't think any of us have said there shouldn't be penalties, but we think they must be reasonable penalties and not take away a person's whole farm for something they didn't do intentionally or whatever.
So I think it's your role here to build that complementary system to work within that national accord. You must make it work for all people in Canada, and make sure the private landowners have a place there and that they feel comfortable working with the provinces and the federal people. I think the key to the whole thing is working together.
.1205
Mr. Wilson: To be quite blunt, it needs to be said that we think we're ahead of government at both levels on this issue. We see the conservation ethics starting to come in on the farms, and we cite examples of initiatives such as the environmental farm plan process in Ontario and the work that the Canadian cattlemen have done, especially in the western provinces. Dealing specifically with this issue, we see a role again for regulation and the punitive measures. But as was just stated, at the end, as to how one brings in the 2% or 3%, or maybe 5% who maybe aren't the least bit interested in what the goal of this type of legislation is or saving and protecting endangered species is, I think what scares us is we're saying this is at the front end, and while there is a role for regulation, as Tim mentioned, regulations are going to be geared to the lowest common denominator. We would suggest we're ahead of you on that one already now.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to defer my time to Mr. Benoit. He's not able to come to committee often and he has some concerns.
But before that, do you believe the provincial legislation we have in Ontario is working, and is that legislation quite a bit less than what is in the accord that has been signed now by the provinces? You give the impression you're recoiling in horror from this legislation, but this doesn't apply to private land and yet we have endangered species legislation in Ontario. Maybe you can comment on that. If it's working in Ontario, what's the problem with the federal government's piece of legislation?
Mr. Wilson: In Ontario specifically it's the endangered species legislation that has been under review. They have made proposals, and a lot of it tends to be pending upon the outcome of where the federal legislation is going. They call their acronym in Ontario COSSARO, and I have a copy of it here in front of me. Without getting into all the specifics, it tends to build on the idea that whether it be a federal government or a provincial government, especially a provincial government in Ontario, they have to face the fiscal realities of the day. They just don't have the resources to apply what we might call the heavy hand of government. We are talking about literally double-digit numbers of inspectors out there in the province of Ontario.
So they're relying almost completely on a concept of partnerships, a concept of peer pressure amongst landowners, to dispel this myth that the worst scenario a landowner can face is to be the second person who discovers an endangered species on their property. The idea is to instil a sentiment out there of having a sense of pride at both discovering an endangered species as well as recognizing having a very personal role to play in either saving or hopefully enhancing the situation regarding that species. That's clearly where the Government of Ontario is moving in their provincial application of this, because they literally have no other choice.
Mr. Forseth: Are you saying that the provincial legislation is not working? It's underfunded and that's why it's not a concern to you?
Mr. Wilson: Ontario is unique, considering that the majority of the Carolinian forest in Canada is in southern Ontario. When one looks possibly at the interpretation of this bill, that becomes a responsibility of Ontario as a government.
Is it not working? To go back to the comments we made on awareness, that's where they're going to put a far greater level of focus on this new revision they're proposing. Quite often it's a case of making the landowner in a sense aware that something is there. Again, instead of coming and saying you have something there, you will do this. It's a question of saying, we think there's something there and can we work on this?
With regard to saying it isn't working, we should note that it was drafted when we had a lot of financial resources, but specifically in Ontario this financial picture is significantly changing. They don't have the resources to carry out the intent of the original act. When you go back to those days when everyone seemed to favour an adversarial type of approach to these issues...now we have a very collaborative approach between the farm community - and this is building nationally as well - and the three levels of government, which in Ontario are the ministries of the environment; natural resources; and agricultural, food and rural affairs.
.1210
We're all on side. There are no surprises when they release something like this. It's unfortunate that we're having our briefing Thursday afternoon on just how Ontario intends to implement what they see will probably evolve out of the federal process.
Mr. Forseth: Could Mr. Benoit ask a couple of questions?
The Chairman: Yes, he can.
Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): Thank you.
It seems that all of you have keyed in on the area of property rights and the right to own and enjoy your property. Of course, as you know, there is no right to own property in this country. It's something that the Reform Party has had as our policy since the formation of the party, that we should have property rights enshrined in the Constitution. That way the use of the property couldn't be taken away without compensation, which is something you've all keyed on. I'd like to ask you to comment on that first.
First of all, do you think in this legislation it is possible that private landowners will be deprived of the use of their property? Secondly, do you believe that with the legislation the way it is there would be compensation for the loss of use of property?
Mr. Andrew: In our interpretation of our briefings with Environment Canada, we understand that through clause 33 there will be takings of private, public and federal lands that are under administration by people like myself for the good of endangered species conservation. It's taking my financial needs and my needs to raise a living for my family in favour of those needs of endangered species, which are going to become far greater needs than my own. This is even though I own a mortgage, I have bills to pay, and I have notes to meet. I see that as a real detriment to my coming onboard and doing far greater actions as far as endangered species conservation or any kind of conservation actions are concerned.
Mr. Benoit: Secondly, in the cattlemen's brief you have a comment here:
- The record of government in protecting species over which they have direct control (i.e. the
Atlantic cod and Pacific salmon) does not create confidence in their ability to develop and
maintain long term protection measures.
Mr. Wilson: I think one of the dilemmas is whether we are going to live in the past and react or whether we are going to look forward to the future. All we're suggesting is nothing more or nothing less. We have some needs out there. We're willing to work; we're big believers in the concept of partnerships. When one talks about takings and land rights, there is the word ``manage'' in there - collaborative and collective management of the species or the habitat. We're almost making an assumption that it isn't in the realm or in the cards. We would suggest that there's a ripe opportunity out there to explore those very types of collaborative approaches, and I'm assuming we will have some failures as well as some successes. How do we build on the successes and learn from the failures? If we're going to point fingers as to the salmon or the cod, it's almost counter-productive.
Let's look down the road at where we go from here and get some real, on the ground, tangible results that we've actually saved some endangered species, which we can all take pride in.
Mr. Turner: I think it should be pointed out that voluntary programs, such as those for the burrowing owl and the attempt at reintroduction of the swift fox, are programs that have shown some promise in saving species. It also illustrates the fact that people look to cattle producers' land for some of these endangered species. We have the habitat and have maintained them - often we have maintained them for many generations. That's without compensation in the past and doing it voluntarily. That was long before the environmental issue was a big issue.
Mr. Benoit: Your point in regard to this clause in your brief then is that the voluntary program has worked better than any heavily regulated program that this legislation might put in place will.
Mr. Turner: Exactly. I think the concern is that once government steps in and starts forcing you to do different things... Most ranchers and farmers do not like excessive regulations. If you're going to be looking over your shoulder every time you do something, you're going to try to make sure you don't have that happening. So if you have a potential habitat in some area that is going to be of serious concern down the road, it might be in your best interest to log it or plough it so it isn't going to become a problem in the future. That's not what we feel is productive for endangered species or for our industry.
.1215
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Knutson.
[English]
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do I understand that the gist of your recommendation is that when we're dealing with private landowners the compliance should be entirely voluntary? There should be no penalty for, say, destroying a nest or...?
Mr. Andrew: To take the specific definition of ``residence'', we'd like that more tightly defined. Within the bill it means a specific dwelling place ``or other similar area habitually occupied by an individual during all or part of its life cycle''. We're opening that definition up to anywhere that animal might hang its hat during its whole life cycle.
Mr. Knutson: Why don't you just deal with my question? Let's say you have a nest of an endangered species on your farm. Am I to understand that you want the law to say your compliance is voluntary because it's on private land? Is that what you're recommending to us?
Mr. Andrew: No, our recommendation is that we've bought onto the task force definition of ``residence'' being an actively occupied nest.
Mr. Knutson: I don't want to get into a debate on what a nest is. The issue I want to deal with is voluntary compliance. Just suppose there's an active nest of an endangered species on your farm. We all agree the birds and eggs are there, and it's a bird that flies across borders, so it's federal jurisdiction. Are you saying your compliance should be based strictly on voluntary compliance? Have I understood that correctly, or am I wrong?
Mr. Andrew: We believe there has to be some responsibility by the landowners.
Mr. Knutson: In law or voluntarily?
Mr. Andrew: That should be within the law. It's not a point of issue with us.
But the fact is the better work will be done if you bring that landowner to the table and say, these are ways you can do a better job of managing this and of increasing that species, rather than if you say, you're going to do this or else we're going to drop a $50,000 fine on your head.
Mr. Knutson: I don't debate the latter point with you. I agree. I just want to make sure we agree that at end of the line there is a penalty if the voluntarily compliance doesn't work.
Mr. Andrew: Yes, we believe there should be some force within the bill or else we're just all here putting paper together, aren't we?
Mr. Knutson: That would be my view. I'm not sure that's the view of other people.
Perhaps I could just use the example of highway traffic. We encourage voluntary compliance. We encourage people to drive courteously and safely - our roads are really based on that - but at the end of the day there are penalties if you speed or drink while driving.
Mr. Turner: If a guy wilfully goes out and destroys an endangered species' nest, I think he should be penalized. But if a guy is ploughing his field and he accidentally runs over one that he doesn't even know is there, I don't think he should be penalized.
Mr. Knutson: I agree that intent is fundamental to understanding liability.
It says here that Bill C-65 allows for conservation agreements with individuals and organizations and requires that the recovery plans be developed in consultation with communities that may be directly affected by the recovery plan. As a cooperative approach, what other measures could be incorporated into the legislation to encourage landowner conservation initiatives?
Furthermore, in light of the comments you made at the end of your presentation that the legislation may cause private landowners to deliberately destroy an endangered species on their land, how would your respective organizations respond to such action by your members? Doesn't the suggestion that some people may deliberately destroy habitat support the need for legislation?
Mr. Turner: You found in the United States that the economic activity has been so affected in some areas that some of the ranchers have gone out and actually destroyed nesting sites or whatever so they do not have the responsibility of this legislation.
.1220
In the Canadian Cattlemen's Association we have several cooperative measures developed especially on a holistic approach on riparian areas, grazing management that encourages whole ecosystems to redevelop and come back... That is where the cattle people would encourage it, and that's why we feel cooperative measures will work better than punitive measures.
Mr. Knutson: But you say there is a place for punitive matters. We might disagree on the amount, but you're saying there is still a place for punishment at the end of the day.
Mr. Andrew: At the end of the day we still have a product that we have to sell in the marketplace every day. If certain other elements of society can brand our product as being a destroyer of the environment, we're going to have a marketing problem.
If these laws will enforce people to go ahead and do what's actually right, you're saving us a problem down the road.
Mr. Knutson: I noticed four provinces have endangered species legislation: New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. Are you aware of any place where those pieces of legislation have caused a farmer to lose his or her livelihood? Have they created some lack of balance in the overall ecological picture represented?
Mr. Wilson: In the past, yes. My understanding is that this is one of the reasons for the review in Ontario. In some cases it was working well. It all depended on the mindset of the landowner. This was a dilemma when you tried to generalize, where each specific instance and circumstance tended to have some element of uniqueness to it.
In the past there were some very polarized sentiments. It's fair to say at the end of the day there was almost the sentiment that the last thing I wanted to see was an endangered species habitat on my property. I separate that from the sentiment that I was going to do something about finding an endangered species.
Have we lost sight of the goal of protecting endangered species? It certainly wasn't working in Ontario. In fact, they had the right to go onto private property as MNR officials. They will not go onto private property without at least knocking on the landowner's door, explaining the situation that they think there's something out there and asking whether they can go and look. They're finding out right now that in 100% of the cases the landowner is saying, certainly, go out and have a look. These are their comments, not ours. But there's a fundamental difference between just walking out and asking.
Mr. Knutson: I agree. In Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec, is the CFA aware of any problems?
Mr. Wilson: We have to be clear that in any one of those situations you're going to find some problems. Human nature being what it is, someone might have an absolute vendetta against any form of government because they had a speeding ticket the week before. When the wildlife manager comes onto the farm, it has nothing to do with the wildlife. They had a speeding ticket under another process where we try to ensure public safety and public obedience.
I'm concerned, and I would ask you in return whether you are trying to tar the entire situation with the same brush.
Mr. Knutson: No.
Mr. Wilson: Each element where there's either a success or a failure will have aspects to it that are unique to this issue.
Mr. Knutson: We're just trying to pass a law that's in the best interests of Canada. It's our obligation to do what's right.
I'll just make one point to close. Having heard the presentation of the groups that came before you, the message was that there wasn't enough teeth in the legislation. Your thrust is that there is too much teeth in the legislation. I'm curious to know what kind of consensus you reached as joint members of the task force.
I know that's a fairly open-ended question, and perhaps we don't have enough time.
Ms Forsyth: That's a big question. As far as the task force was concerned, the agreement was that there needed to be an act. There needed to be empowerment of COSEWIC. There needed to be recovery plans where habitat protection would be dealt with. There needed to be penalties. There needed to be other provisions to allow those things. Those were all agreed to.
The emphasis that we also placed on the task force was that there needed to be partnerships, there needed to be incentives, and there needed to be education and awareness. As Sandy Baumgartner already said this morning, we didn't have time to come to those.
.1225
In the end, we realized as a task force that really was the crux of the matter. How do you write an agreement where a species needs to have habitat protected when there's a piece of federal land here, a piece of private land here and a piece of provincially supported land here? You need to write an agreement that brings all that together.
That agreement could include incentives for landowners, education and awareness ideas for the landowners, and access to technical people from the provinces who know how to do something with this species or that ecosystem. It may include compensation where the farmer's going to lose a big chunk of their land - they can't use it any more - but have agreed to do that. It's part of their voluntary give-up for the species' protection.
I think that's where you see the difference between the two groups. We're trying to focus on the partnership side of it and not so much on the punitive side of it. We really feel that's where it will go as far as the farming community is concerned.
With regard to the act in the general sense, the task force was fairly cohesive on the points that have already been talked about.
Mr. Knutson: Thanks.
The Chairman: Thank you.
If the voluntary approach was the only answer, we wouldn't be in the critical situation we are in. I hope you will agree with that.
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It seems to me the problem we're confronting is that it is loss or change of habitat that is killing off these species. By the way, I'm not blaming you. I'm blaming me as much as anybody else. Okay? We're human beings. We're living on the planet. But all the evidence suggests that. It's not people going around shooting them or trapping them or something like that. If we could solve the habitat problem, 90% of the problem would be solved. That's why we're dealing with it.
I want to go back to this business of these four provinces. At the moment, well over half of the country is covered by provincial legislation. Two-thirds of the population - and I would assume of the private property - of the country is covered by legislation.
Gar asked some questions about that, I know, but I have never heard of a citizen case or of a government case brought against a private landowner in those jurisdictions. I heard the point that there aren't enough inspectors, and I know that, but they have provisions, we were told this morning, for citizens to bring cases where they think it's serious. I've never heard of one. Have you?
Mr. Andrew: Our worry is that if we get into a situation like what they have down in the United States, where there are very well-funded, very active environmental groups that have some other goals in mind, that's what this bill is going to lead to when it's enacted on a federal jurisdiction where it becomes beyond the provincial matter and it carries on down the road so that the little guy is going to get it.
Mr. Adams: There are federal acts covering those four provinces as well. It seems to me we don't have to look down the road. We are actually living now...
Let me put it this way. Are the provisions provided in here going to be stronger or weaker than what already exists in those four provinces in terms of penalties for destroying habitat? In each of those four provinces there is some sort of protection of habitat. I forget the details from this morning. In one case - I know it's Ontario, and it's being reviewed - it's mandatory, I think. In the other two, it's a bit less powerful.
So we're living under that now. That exists. Is the new regime going to be any different?
Mr. Wilson: I think the one component, remembering that most of these acts came in...let's make an assumption that over four of the last ten years. That puts us at 1986. I'll give you an analogy on awareness that I think is very appropriate. In 1988, alar hit the news. That was one issue. Then Chilean cynanide-tainted grapes hit the news. That woke us up to the issue of food safety.
The question that begged to be answered, and was asked, was whether farmers were capable of properly applying pesticides. Fair enough question. We took the high road in response to that as a farming community in Canada. We learned a lot. We have training programs in place. But the key thing that wasn't there before was awareness. We're all guilty of that, whether we're farmers, you as regulators, environmentalists or conservationists. Quite often we're all guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees.
.1230
I would argue that one thing that's absent from this is... You talked about how many cases actually go to court. So very few of them do because usually it's an issue of awareness. Make the individual aware and at least give the impression that while they may be the sole economic stakeholder in terms of whether it's action or recovery, at least there's a recognition that the economic sacrifice is there. One concern that isn't really here is that everyone wants a say, but no one really wants to pay. If I'm going to be the payee, or the payor, at least acknowledge that I've contributed something.
Right now in the case of Ontario, with the farm plan process, farmers are spending $6 for every $1 from both levels of government that are going into it.
So the track record is there. How do we build on something that's working? I don't think anyone is saying they want millions of dollars in compensation. And compensation doesn't necessarily have to be entirely monetary. There are other ways to look at things. But quite often it's just a recognition of what the cattlemen have done in northern Alberta, for example, on the spotted owl or what have you - just simple things like recognition. That also falls into the category of compensation.
Mr. Adams: My question was whether the situation in Ontario is going to change when this legislation goes through. In those provinces where this legislation is, aren't we actually living in it now? Are there differences? There isn't chaos. There may be some friction, but there's no chaos in these jurisdictions. Is it going to be any different when this legislation goes through?
Mr. Wilson: The comment earlier was how successive governments will interpret what's done today. That, to me, was a very fair question. If someone goes in and is bent on the heavy hand of law, for whatever reason, then certainly the ghosts come back to haunt.
Mr. Adams: Would that apply at the provincial level where these four acts exist?
Mr. Wilson: Yes. The ghosts came back to haunt; that's what I'm stating. They came back to haunt and the process is under review and will be changed.
Mr. Adams: In Ontario, but what about the others?
Mr. Wilson: I can't speak for the others as provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, my sense is that it's not as big a change as some of your colleagues appear to think.
Let's go back to this business of turning out the cows and killing a few species. I'm not sure where you think you stand at the moment, but I would have thought that in every case due diligence is a defence. In other words, if you had no idea, if you had no reason to know there was an endangered species there and you trampled on its nest, don't you agree that under existing...like the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for example, due diligence in that sense is protection?
Mr. Andrew: There gets to be a real concept of exclusion. We can just fence the cows out of that piece of ground and you can be compensated for its loss or whatever.
Where I live, I like to turn out on May 1. We can still have spring storms. My cows go into different nesting areas where they don't normally have habitat. If we get a long storm and my cows trample a bunch of brush down and it happens to be the nesting site of a loggerhead shrike, well, I've put those cows on that pasture and I know there's this possibility; therefore, I don't have a case of due diligence. I've set up the opportunity to happen and I'm going to be liable. That's my real concern.
Mr. Adams: But aren't you liable now? If that were a migratory species under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, if you deliberately destroyed the habitat of a migratory species that is now protected by federal and international legislation, aren't you already affected by that? Is that going to change?
If you show due diligence, you're not liable under the Migratory Birds Convention Act - nor, Mr. Chair, I would suggest, are you under the legislation proposed here. What is the change?
Mr. Wilson: Due diligence would suggest that he either not turn the cows out if he were aware, or that he do just that, that he fence off the area of the loggerhead shrike. That's what we would interpret due diligence as entailing. It's not just the fact that there may be a possibility out there. It's acknowledging the possibility and some action to deal with the possibility, to mitigate it.
Mr. Adams: But my point again is what is the change? At the moment, if it's a migratory species that is protected under federal law, you're liable already. Is there going to be a change?
Mr. Andrew: The change will be that I'm going to be expected to take that land out of production and not use it for its optimum use, from my point of view. Therefore, I've lost that opportunity.
.1235
Mr. Adams: All I'm trying to get at is under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, if it's a migratory species - I know some of the answers to my questions - you're already liable.
Mr. Andrew: I'm not liable for any kind of recompense for it. I'm not going to get anything back.
Mr. Adams: You're liable for penalties. It's a serious matter if you deliberately go out and destroy habitat of a migratory species.
Mr. Chair, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly what the penalties are, but they're very considerable.
In the case of provincial jurisdiction, and under the migratory species act, the scale of the changes we're looking at - my sense is they aren't that great. I think what we're looking at - and I know the habitat thing is very sensitive. I know you have 17,000 acres and I understand why it is...but it's not that great.
The federal government already has ways of getting at you for putting cattle onto the nest of a migratory bird. It's not going to be that different afterwards. All the time, as long as there's due diligence, you have protection.
You don't want to go out there and trample on nests; I know you don't. I know there's a limit perhaps to the area you could protect, but for a few days you could protect an area. I'm sure that's what you would do once you knew there was something out there.
Mr. Turner: I just think with the addition of clauses 33 and 60, especially in combination, and the definitions of residents and habitat, it does increase our concerns over what is there right now.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I want to follow up with what Mr. Adams was saying, because in a lot of respects there aren't a lot of significant changes with this bill. We already have the Migratory Birds Convention Act; we already have the Fisheries Act. Four provincial governments already have endangered species legislation. We've had migratory bird conventions since the turn of the century, and we've never heard - at least I've never heard and maybe you can help me with this - of a farmer losing the farm or his livelihood, as you are suggesting today.
I'm wondering whether you know about the fines in the Fisheries Act and under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and how they differ from this particular bill.
Mr. Andrew: Within my 17,000-acre ranch there is no opportunity -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Do you have any fresh water?
Mr. Andrew: None at all. It's all ground water or trap water that I water my stock with.
If we have this legislation before all these other opportunities to make use of habitat conservation through the other acts, why are we here today?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Because it expands the coverage to federal lands.
Mr. Adams: The answer is that there are some other species.
Mr. Andrew: Exactly. The Migratory Birds Convention Act does not cover any raptors. It doesn't cover the hawks, burrowing owls, or the peregrine falcons. Those sorts of species aren't covered.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sure, and that's a criticism of the act.
Mr. Andrew: Of the Migratory Birds Conventions Act or of this bill?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Of this bill. That's a criticism, because those species are capable of being endangered and threatened as well, and are. That is a criticism of this bill.
Mr. Andrew: Now, through listing them, wouldn't they be given that sort of protection?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Not unless they're on federal land. Do you have any federal lands in the middle of your ranch?
Mr. Andrew: There are crown properties, which are supposed to be legislated by the province. When you take in the provision of an emergency order under clause 33, it becomes a federal territory.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You've been very upset about the immensity of the fines. The fines in this bill are similar to the fines in the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the fines under the Fisheries Act are even greater.
The dollar value is not something new that's just come out with this piece of legislation.
I don't know whether anyone heard the testimony from the witnesses who came before us. Even The Globe and Mail, God forbid, has suggested there are concerns that this bill doesn't have any teeth and that the federal government is not exercising its full jurisdiction.
.1240
I'm going to have to reread the act, but when you talk about the tone of this act and it being based on punitive measures and all this, you're obviously reading a different Bill C-65 than I am. This act is building on a lot of the kinds of voluntary initiatives that have previously been undertaken in this country. Project Burrowing Owl is a fine example of that, and I think a lot of ranchers from your community have taken a lot of pride in participating in those programs.
This is what this act is about, and it floors me that we seem to be talking about two different acts here. I guess I'm going to have to reread this thing, because I'm not seeing the same perspective you're seeing here.
Mr. Turner: You asked if anybody had lost their farm or whatever. I don't think there has been opportunity for civil enforcement in the past, and I think that's what our biggest concern is. As we pointed out, our two main concerns are sections 33 and 60, especially in combination. If those go in, we feel we could get in trouble and have our livelihoods really affected.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The Ontario Bill of Rights hasn't had any lawsuits go against it. No one has even used that provision. We have opportunities under CEPA. It's only been used twice since 1988, and there are all kinds of protective provisions within that as well. I think Mr. Adams has pointed out that if you're using due diligence, then you're protected. If you're wilfully destroying a species or habitat, you yourself have said there should be penalties.
You talked about awareness, and I think there is a need to develop a clearer understanding with the Federation of Agriculture and the Cattlemen's Association on just what this act is intended to do. As parliamentary secretary I'd be more than happy to sit down with you and allay some of your fears. The Federation of Agriculture, the CFA, has signed onto the task force report, so I'm not sure what the big differences are here, and in fact we're being criticized because we're weaker than the task force report. Maybe we're hitting a happy medium.
Ms Forsyth: I think we need to clarify here that we're complaining more about the lack of recognition of what private landowners and people in general do. We have said in the National Agriculture Environment Committee's brief that all sorts of recognition is given to aboriginal people and other things, but there's no recognition that sustainable use, as the cattlemen and other farmers do, contributes to protecting species. That we complain about. We're afraid that the provisions that allow for agreements and what not are not strong enough in here.
We want to work through those types of agreements. It's hard for us to sort of plough around through the language and find where we fit, and I think that's why we're concerned about it. We've talked a lot about partnerships. We've talked about working with these different levels of government and we don't see enough support for that in this act. So we're complaining more about the fact that we can't find ourselves as farming communities and others as readily as we would like to.
We don't disagree that there should be a federal act with these provisions. We think COSEWIC needs to be supported. We understand the need for the recovery plans, but we're concerned the recovery plans the task force recommended should include landowners in the development, planning and preparation of those. We're relegated to being consulted with, and these are the concerns we're trying to bring to you today, that we want to see ourselves here a little bit better.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: They're fair concerns. The press kit that went out with the legislation had case after case of instances where recovery plans are working. That was right at the forefront. I met with a group of individuals, private landowners, who have been working themselves to encourage the preservation of plant and animal species, and that was right at the forefront. This is what this bill is based on.
Your other concern is around the partnering, and you've said over and over that there is a need for different governments to work together, for different stakeholders to work together, yet you are highly critical of the process that's been established around the national accord and some of these other organizations. You say these are going to be far too bureaucratic. But the whole principle around the council of provincial and federal ministers responsible is dispute resolution. The national accord is an integration of the federal and the provincial, and the recovery plans involve private landowners.
.1245
All of these things are working toward partnering. This is what this legislation is all about. The minister has clearly stated that not one jurisdiction or sector can handle it. Frankly, if we're only going to rely on punitive measures to derive a sustainable agenda, it will never work. They have to be there because you need a stick or things won't happen sometimes, but it has to be built on individual action, and I fully applaud that. So I'm having trouble understanding that when we're putting out partnership ideas from our side, they're rejected as being bureaucratic, yet you're saying you need partnership.
Ms Forsyth: When we're talking about the bureaucratic, I think we're talking about some of the details of the act where all sorts of permitting systems are suggested. We don't know how that is meant to be set up. We don't understand some of the points that are made about extra committees and stuff. Our concern is that you don't build a great big bureaucracy that has to watch itself, that you make sure the grassroots stuff is supported. It's a caution to not make the system so complex, which if you read the act carefully, there is potential for. Make it clear, but make it simple. Don't take two extra floors on Place Vincent Massey to make it go. Keep it simple so that the money goes directly where it needs to go, and that's to the species and the habitat.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But the tone of the brief seemed to be fairly harsh in that regard, and more than anything else I think we have been trying to work towards partnering, because we recognize that's how stuff is going to get done.
Ms Forsyth: We would recommend that you read the details of the brief, because we do make specific comments as to where we see the bureaucratic process being overemphasized. It would be helpful if you had a more detailed look at what we say there.
Mr. Wilson: I think we have every right to be concerned. In this town are somewhere between 24 and 27 agencies wanting to get their hands into farmers' pockets in cost recovery right now, the worst one being the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which was billed as a partnership, as a collective way of dealing with regulating the use and licensing of pesticide products in Canada. That's going to be a $52 million hit to the farmers of Canada.
I think we have every right to raise concerns as to what the potential of these bills can be once they leave this type of process and are enacted on the ground. We're very concerned, as Sheila said.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is turning into a bureaucratic nightmare, with the last concern being how we properly ensure the health and safety of Canadians. That's our concern here. At the end of the day is this thing going to help save endangered species, or is it going to be another antagonistic approach that pits farmers against the other members and stakeholders in society? We're asking legitimate questions and we expect legitimate answers back. Not to say there's really nothing in there - then why do you have it here? I think that's a very fair question to ask on this one. If it's so innocuous, why are we here discussing it?
I think we have to acknowledge the potential of what this bill could entail for us as both farmers and landowners, and if we want to have a positive partnership-type approach, then let's see it clearly reflected in the wording of the legislation and address those concerns. We didn't say the thing is absolute trash. We acknowledge that there are some good points to it and some points of concern to it, and we want nothing more and nothing less than to have them addressed. That's a fair thing to request from both this committee and government.
The Chairman: I'm going to jump in because time is moving on and the committee is becoming restless. We started early.
I agree with you, Mr. Wilson. You have presented a brief that attempts to be positive, particularly on the first two pages when you set the stage. Probably every member of this committee would agree with the six bullets under item A.
.1250
I would only add that this legislation would not be here if the situation were not critical, and the situation would not be critical if it were left only to voluntary action.
It seems to me Mr. Knutson made a very helpful analogy by comparing it with the Highway Traffic Act, since 90% of those using the highway cooperate and voluntarily abide by a set of rules that do exist. This legislation is not intended for those who are doing the right thing; it is intended for those who are in that smaller percentage. So I don't think we are very far apart at all.
On a few occasions you have spoken about the lack of recognition, and you have a point. There's no doubt. Lack of recognition cannot be included in legislation. It cannot be corrected that way. There are other ways of doing it. Surely we must come up with ways of providing recognition and incentives - not monetary incentives, though, but recognition in society. Call it value recognition. That needs to be done.
Also keep in mind the fact that in the United States this legislation has existed for the last 23 years and really it doesn't cause any damage. If anything it has been the object of a convergence of interest and it has produced considerable cooperation.
We have made good note of the issue of fines, but remember, we had this discussion in 1994, if I remember correctly, when we passed the migratory bird legislation. I think some of you appeared before the committee. Surely there could be better ways than imposing fines, if we can get the cooperation of society as a whole and if we all agree on the first point you have under ``Setting the Stage'', which is: ``We all want to protect endangered species.''
You touch on a very important point - at least for me it registers very strongly - in your last bullet under B, namely the lack of recognition of partnerships and other activities crucial for the success of this bill, e.g., education. Definitely this issue could be advanced considerably through education of not just one community or one sector of society but the totality of society.
Certainly through advocacy and education we could go a long way and achieve much more than through any legislation. There's no doubt about that. But at this stage, considering the critical situation, we also have to move with legislative steps.
I can assure you we will read your report very thoroughly. We found your intervention today very helpful in giving us your perspective and the shortcomings of the picture as you see it at the present time.
It is 1 o'clock, and we have Question Period at 2 o'clock, so we will ask you to understand our limitation of time.
We want to thank you very much for your appearance today.
The meeting is adjourned