Transcription du comité 1997-déc-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Bill 139, Mr Hodgson / Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune, projet de loi 139, M. Hodgson

Ontario Aquaculture Association

Mr Julian Hynes

Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Mr Ken Kelly

World Wildlife Fund Canada

Mr Monte Hummel

Mr Dick Barr

Animal Alliance of Canada

Ms Liz White

Bear Alliance

Ms Ainslie Willock

Toronto Wildlife Centre

Ms Nathalie Karvonen

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Mr David McLaren

World Society for the Protection of Animals

Mr Mike McIntosh

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters

Mr Rick Morgan

Mr Chris Brousseau

Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association

Mr Jim Antler

International Wildlife Coalition

Ms Leslie Bisgould

Ontario White-Tailed Deer Producers Association

Ms Lizeanne Kerkvliet

Mr Ed Bishop

Ontario Hawking Club

Mr Martin Geleynse

Clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 139

Good Samaritan Act, 1997, Bill 166, Mr Gilchrist /

Loi de 1997 sur le bon samaritain, projet de loi 166, M. Gilchrist

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Peter North (Elgin Ind)

Mr John Brisbane, fish and wildlife operations specialist, fish and wildlife branch, MNR

Miss Leith Hunter, solicitor, legal services branch, MNR

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff/Personnel

Mr Jerry Richmond and Mr Avrum Fenson, research officers, Legislative Research Service

Mr Doug Beecroft, legislative counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government. We're here this morning to look at Bill 139. Before we have our deputations, I'd like to ask for the report of the subcommittee.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Our report of the subcommittee re Bill 139, An Act to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife through the revision of the Game and Fish Act.

"The subcommittee met on Tuesday 9 December 1997 and agreed to the following:

"(1) That the committee will meet on Thursday 11 December 1997 to deal with the abovenoted bill.

"(2) That the following groups were invited to make a deputation -- and if it's permissible, I'll just read the names of the groups rather than all the individuals: Ontario Federation of Agriculture, World Wildlife Fund, Bear Alliance, Animal Alliance, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Ontario White-Tailed Deer Producers Association, International Wildlife Coalition, Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals, Canadian Environmental Law Association, World Society for the Protection of Animals, Ontario Hawking Club.

"(3) That any cancellations from the above list will be filled by the Chair in consultation with the clerk.

"(4) That the deputants will be offered 10 minutes in which to make their presentation.

"(5) That an advertisement will be placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel.

"(6) That ministry staff will be available throughout the hearings to answer any questions that might arise.

"(7) That the clerk has the authority to begin implementing these decisions immediately.

"(8) That the Chair is authorized to begin the meeting punctually, even if all parties are not represented.

"(9) That the deadline for written decisions is Thursday 11 December 1997.

"(10) That any amendments should be delivered to the clerk of the committee by 2:30 pm on December 11, 1997, if possible.

"(11) That there will not be any opening statements during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

"(12) That the Chair, in consultation with the clerk, will make any other decisions necessary with respect to this bill."

I move the adoption of this report.

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Madam Chair, on number 12 I think it was discussed that we would leave it up to the Chair and the clerk as to the deputants and not necessarily as to the bill. Can I have this clarified, please?

The Vice-Chair: I believe that it's normal that any small decisions to be made related to the consideration of the bill would be done by the Chair.

Mr Sergio: I guess it's more an explanation. I don't want you and the clerk to have any say with respect to the bill itself.

The Vice-Chair: No.

Mr Sergio: That's the way I read it.

The Vice-Chair: I think it's the question of the way in which the bill is passed.

Mr Sergio: All right.

The Vice-Chair: Any further questions? I call for a vote on this report. All in favour?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I would like to move that we also hear the Ontario Aquaculture Association, which was not on the list.

The Vice-Chair: We have to vote on the subcommittee report first. Agreed? Now your point.

Mr Michael Brown: I would move we hear the Ontario Aquaculture Association.

The Vice-Chair: Any questions? It's first on the agenda.

Mr Michael Brown: They weren't read from the subcommittee report.

The Vice-Chair: I think the point about the cancellations and adjustments would be made and point 3 is the reason why they weren't included there.

Mr Michael Brown: As long as we hear them.

The Vice-Chair: Can I ask once again for clarification on the support of this subcommittee report? All those in favour? Thank you.

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION DU POISSON ET DE LA FAUNE

Bill 139, An Act to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife through the revision of the Game and Fish Act / Projet de loi 139, Loi visant à promouvoir la protection du poisson et de la faune en révisant la Loi sur la chasse et la pêche.

ONTARIO AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'm pleased to welcome all of you here today to make these submissions. We're going to begin with the Ontario Aquaculture Association, Julian Hynes. I'd like to explain that each deputation has 10 minutes and if there is time available, then we will go in rotation for questions. Good morning and thank you very much for appearing before us today.

Mr Julian Hynes: Thank you very much for accommodating the Ontario Aquaculture Association in this morning's hearings. I'd like also to acknowledge with thanks the assistance of Shelley Martel and Michael Brown in bringing this to your attention.

I'm the executive director of the Ontario Aquaculture Association. My name is Julian Hynes. I'd like to begin by letting you know trout farming is over 35 years old in Ontario. In 1996, production was approximately 4,200 tonnes of mostly rainbow trout, contributing $50 million to the Ontario economy. Fish farming creates jobs and economic stability in rural and native communities, produces fresh, healthy food and creates fishing through stocking in both private and public waters. Ontario is blessed with abundant, high-quality water resources and excellent infrastructure. It's a great business opportunity in a renewable resource-based industry that is both environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

The Ontario Aquaculture Association would like to acknowledge with thanks the contributions of the Ontario government. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs contributes almost $1 million annually, mostly through the University of Guelph, to research and services. The Ontario Aquaculture Association is also grateful for the support it has been receiving through a cooperative partnership agreement with the ministries of natural resources and ag and food.

The MNR has made its intentions known repeatedly, that it's interested in supporting aquaculture industry development and growth. It demonstrated this in 1995 by creating an expanded species list in regulation and by removing the $50 stocking licence fee during this year. However, industry development is hampered by an overabundance of regulations, licences and permits. As many as two dozen are needed to establish a fish farm in Ontario. This is a case, in my view, of hyper-regulation by accident. No single agency can see the whole picture facing the prospective fish farmer or investor. Each protects its own and the result is smothering development.

1000

This brings us to Bill 139, which offers a rare and unprecedented opportunity for the Ontario government to establish a more appropriate legislative framework to foster the responsible and sustainable development of aquaculture in the province. This is the primary legislation under which we are governed. It is time for change.

The MNR staff have taken positive steps recently to resolve three of industry's concerns:

Abandonment and spoilage of fish: The MNR staff have proposed an amendment to the bill by adding a subsection allowing an exception by regulation from subsection 36(5).

Labelling of transport containers for fish: The MNR has suggested that by regulation it would exempt this requirement under 57(1).

The ability to transfer licences on sale of properties would be authorized by regulation through 68(1).

It's important that these commitments be honoured. However, two critical amendments are still needed which will remove much of the business insecurity.

The first one is cancellation of licences. Subsection 75(1) provides for cancellation of a licence on an opinion considered "reasonably necessary for the conservation and management of wildlife or fish." "Reasonably necessary" does not require scientific proof. I submit that this is an unnecessary power when there are already substantial powers for licensing under sections 47 and paragraph 35 of section 110.

Fish farm licences should not be subject to the same cancellation powers as licences issued for harvesting wild fish. Businesses must be able to operate without the risk of licence cancellation. This particular clause can be a critical impediment to investment in fish farming. Fish farms require long-term security of tenure to operate. The Ontario Aquaculture Association seeks an amendment to section 75 providing for exemption via regulation of fish farms from the cancellation provision. In other words, we need an exception subsection there.

The second concern is regarding definitions. The Ontario Aquaculture Association recommends that farmed fish be distinguished from wild fish, which are the purview of conservation and management of fisheries. This constitutes in fact a legal recognition for farmed fish as a separate entity and is not dissimilar from other farmed animals treated in this bill. This will reduce the uncertainty about ownership and recognize ownership consistent with the policies in use by the MNR but giving it the weight of law.

The Ontario Aquaculture Association seeks an amendment providing a definition of "farmed fish," meaning fish raised under the authority of a fish farm or aquaculture licence.

In conclusion, the Ontario Aquaculture Association hopes that the Legislature will accommodate the industry's needs by making the two amendments suggested above. The association looks forward to working with its partners in government to bring about a supportive legal environment which will foster investment in and growth of fish farming in Ontario. Thank you very much. I can take questions.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hynes. We'll begin with the official opposition. We have about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mr Hynes, for coming to see us. Aquaculture, as you know, is widely practised in my constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin and it's an important industry.

I'm just wondering, when we talk about section 75, would you feel more comfortable with it if there was some kind of right of appeal to this decision? It seems very arbitrary the way it's written, and if we don't succeed in getting an amendment -- it appears strange to me that there's no right to appeal a decision of the crown.

Mr Hynes: Certainly right of appeal would be a minimal requirement. The difficulty we face is in the powers of licensing and the idea is to put these conditions on licences up front and make sure that everything is appropriate before the licence is issued rather than after the fact trying to cancel it because of some wrong. We believe that the ability of our businesses to carry on their activities should be allocated and provided for at the beginning and not during their operations. We feel there can be enough safeguards in place for the licence issuing not to require this particular rather substantial power.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Thank you very much, Mr Hynes. You'll know that the ministry in the interpretation application has a definition for "culture." There's no definition for "farmed fish." Can you explain to us why the definition of culture in your view does not give you enough power in law to do what you want to have done?

Mr Hynes: It's not so much that the definition of culture doesn't give power; it doesn't distinguish a culture of private fish from fish cultured for fisheries management purposes. It has been indicated by ministry staff that there's no intention of licensing other sectors such as those who import live fish, the community fisheries involvement groups and indeed the ministry's own fish culture stations. We felt that it would be important for us to distinguish private property fish from the fish which are the purview of wild fisheries management. This is, after all, a conservation and management bill, not a bill affecting livestock in general.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Thank you very much, Mr Hynes, for coming in, especially on such short notice, for these hearings.

I understand the aquaculture business in Ontario has increased significantly in the last 10 or 12 years. I'm told it's sixfold since 1985, which indicates a rapidly growing industry and a rapidly expanding one. There have been a few problems associated with it, one I believe in Mr Brown's riding of Manitoulin where some water quality issues were put at risk and another I believe was at the east end of Lake Ontario with an escape.

Could you comment on either one of those two issues? Are you aware of them?

Mr Hynes: Yes. Fish farming is a risky business, in addition to having these various problems with regulation. The licensing provisions in this bill and, by the way, the land use permits under the Public Lands Act, provide for licensing and siting of aquaculture facilities. These will continue and they provide the powers necessary. In neither case would the current regime of licensing have made any difference to those two incidents.

Mr Chudleigh: It's a rapidly growing business and a new one. I guess we're all learning as we go.

Mr Hynes: It's a new one, it's a risky one, and we're trying to work with government to grow in an orderly fashion and to reduce the numbers of incidents such as those.

Mr Chudleigh: We appreciate your personal long-time efforts in growing this industry as well from the basis of Ontario's economy. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hynes, for coming here this morning. We appreciate the input.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

The Vice-Chair: I would next like to call on the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ken Kelly and Peter Jeffrey. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee. For the purposes of Hansard, would you please identify yourselves. As I explained, you have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation. If there's time available, we will ask the caucus for questions. Please begin.

Mr Ken Kelly: We certainly welcome the opportunity to spend the 10 minutes with the committee. I'm Ken Kelly, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. With me is Peter Jeffrey, who is senior research and policy analyst. I'd also like to introduce Steve Waterworth, who is attending this morning. He's president of the Ontario Deer and Elk Farmers' Association.

I think the first thing I would like to ask, Madam Chair, is if the brief that has been distributed to you could be entered into the proceedings and then we won't have to read it. That would then allow me the opportunity to try and do about a two-minute recap and then get into some questions. If we could do that, it would be very helpful.

The Vice-Chair: Certainly. The 10 minutes are yours.

Mr Kelly: Generally we are supportive of the intent of this act, yet while reading it we do find some problems that are centred under four major topics or headings.

The first has to do with the definition of the word "farmer." The definition of farmer in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is substantially outdated, particularly if I might draw your attention to the part about a farmer being one who is "a settler engaged in clearing land for the purpose of bringing it to a state of cultivation." Frankly, it's more reflective of the 1880s than the year 2000.

1010

We recognize the need to define "farmer" in this legislation, and we suggest that the farm business registration number established under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act be utilized, or the definition from the Farm Practices Protection Act or the recently introduced Farming and Food Production Protection Act could be adopted. They are much more descriptive of the reality of farming, and some consistency between acts would be appropriate.

Second, trespassing is a major concern for farmers. Section 10 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act should clearly indicate that entry into all premises in contravention of the Trespass to Property Act is prohibited. Certainly that is not clear as you read the act.

Subsection 10(5), land with a standing crop, at least should be rewritten to reflect that a standing crop includes pastures, orchards or other trees, vineyards and winter wheat, even when snow-covered, as well as lands fenced to contain livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act should also reflect that if anyone does go on this land with permission, there is a need to leave all gates as they find them. Too often we find people who come on land either with or, more often, without permission, leave the gates open, and then of course the livestock wanders and strays. I think this act should probably reference the Trespass to Property Act as the cleanest and best way of ensuring that there is consistency between regulations and legislation.

Third, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, places a more onerous compliance burden on fish farm operators as opposed to the operators of other livestock enterprises. Frankly, we find this unacceptable. We expect that fish farms be treated no differently than all other farm operations. Mr Hynes, ahead of me, mentioned that. If you read through our brief, you'll find a number of references to areas within this act that need to be cleaned and straightened and tidied.

Fourth, section 44, the rehabilitation of sick, injured or immature wildlife, and section 46, release of wildlife, pose concerns for farmers. We are not against the whole concept of releasing or reintroducing wildlife. We are supportive of that. We just don't want the raccoons reintroduced into our cornfields; we don't want the coyotes reintroduced into our sheep pens. There needs to be some practical balance in here to ensure there's a peaceful coexistence of all in the rural countryside. Predator damage to livestock is a significant problem. These sections certainly need some clarification.

I'm going to say that I was a little disappointed when we raised all of these concerns with the ministry and apparently the ministry, before bringing the bill to this point, did not take some of these concerns very seriously. I hope that at this stage, before we move to third reading -- and I hope we do that very quickly -- these four areas of concern can be dealt with, and dealt with appropriately.

I'd like to thank you very much for your time and I'd be pleased to move it into questions.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin with Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: Thank you very much for coming here today. You mentioned a number of sections that need clarification or cleaning up. I hate to ask you this because I recognize the time pressure we're all under, but has your association put together some specific wording with the sections that you're particularly concerned about that this committee can review?

Mr Kelly: Yes. It's all in the brief.

Ms Martel: I see where the sections are where you have some specific concerns. I was questioning whether or not there was some actual wording.

Mr Kelly: Did we actually go back through the brief and rewrite it? No, not in the last two days.

Ms Martel: No, just the sections that you had some concerns about. Sorry.

Mr Kelly: We'd be prepared to be as helpful as possible, but no, what we have in the brief is what we were able to bring today.

Ms Martel: That would probably be helpful to the committee. You'll know that we're doing the clause-by-clause this afternoon, so it's a bit of a time problem for us, but perhaps we can do some work on that with ministry staff or legal counsel who are here to try and see if we can accommodate those concerns.

Mr Kelly: I think within the brief we do, as we go through paragraph by paragraph, point out the sections that those paragraphs pertain to. We may have some extra information that we could try and leave today.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much, Mr Kelly, for coming in today. It's good to see you again. I appreciate your brief very much and the four points that you've raised. The definition of "farmer" casts back a few memories. I think since the clearing of the land it's been a hotly debated issue.

Mr Kelly: I hope you're not suggesting that was an era that we both shared.

Mr Chudleigh: I've been accused of that.

Regarding your reference to the Trespass to Property Act, the references in the bill are there as a complement to that act. We've just asked for a quick review on that to see if there is some way in which we can tie that tighter, but we will have a look at that.

I appreciate your comments concerning fish farms. We are working with that. It's an area that agriculture and the Ministry of Natural Resources share.

We appreciate your coming in today.

Mr Kelly: If I could have a moment or two, certainly within the Trespass to Property Act it does describe what agricultural land is and also includes woodlots adjacent to farm land. That would appear to be somewhat overlooked here, as well as the whole issue of signage. Under the trespass act, when it comes to farm land, signage does not need to be in place for trespass to occur, yet a casual read of this act would cause a lot of confusion not only to enforcement officers but to people who may well not have the time or the inclination to go through the granting of permission that we would consider appropriate.

Mr Michael Brown: Mr Kelly, I appreciate your comments with regard to aquaculture. As the parliamentary assistant said earlier, there have been some problems with some aquaculture. My experience is that the producers themselves have been very helpful in resolving whatever problem would arise.

As a matter of fact, the problem that I think Mr Chudleigh was alluding to, for example, is being dealt with right now, where it was a problem with the specifics of the location, where the ministry also had a pen there earlier in the same location. I just wanted to tell you, I thank you for those comments because it is a growing industry and it has huge potential in the province of Ontario.

Mr Kelly: I would tend to agree. No farmer would want to see any escape, because that's his bottom line running out the back door. Nobody wants to see that. Farmers guard jealously against that happening. Both federally and provincially, we have substantial water quality and environmental legislation that already supersedes even this act. I think our concern is that the institution of another layer of regulation, legislation and bureaucracy may well be unnecessary and may be an onerous burden to people who want to pursue the ability to feed our population and export from our province in a safe and low-cost manner.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kelly and Mr Jeffrey, for appearing here before us today.

Mr Kelly: Again, thank you very much for your time.

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND CANADA

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Monte Hummel, representing the World Wildlife Fund. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Monte Hummel: Thank you. I'm Monte Hummel, president of World Wildlife Fund Canada.

Mr Dick Barr: I'm Dick Barr. I'm the chief operating officer of World Wildlife Fund Canada.

Mr Hummel: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee as you hear presentations on Bill 139.

First, two sentences about the organization I represent. World Wildlife Fund is the largest conservation organization in the world, with six million members and offices in 70 countries; we raise half a billion dollars per year worldwide for conservation projects and have supported over 10,000 conservation projects in 140 countries. We are not an anti-hunting or animal rights organization; rather we work for sustainable use of wildlife as a science-based conservation organization whose global goal is to stop and eventually reverse the accelerating degradation of our planet's natural environment and to help build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

1020

Second, if I may, two sentences about me. I was raised in the bush in northwestern Ontario in a family where hunting has been a tradition and a source of country food for four generations; I earned pocket money as a kid plucking wild ducks and filleting fish; I am a former canoe guide on the Arctic watershed in Ontario; I'm a former president of the Labrador Retriever Club of Ontario and I'm a forester by training. All of this to me means I am personally familiar with and sympathetic to the lifestyle of people who live in the north, including guide outfitters and tourist operators; I am not personally opposed to hunting -- in fact, I would probably do more of it myself if I had the time -- and I am certainly not opposed to properly training hunting dogs, such as retrievers, for conservation purposes.

I am pleased to provide all committee members with a signed copy of a book my wife Sherry Pettigrew and I authored in 1991 on the conservation of large carnivores in Canada, including black bears.

To be clear, on balance, World Wildlife Fund supports Bill 139. It provides, in our view, long-overdue changes to the old Game and Fish Act. We were fully consulted and involved in its development. In fact, many of our concerns and ideas are reflected in the new act: for example, the very name of the act was one of our suggestions, that we get off the old "game and fish" tone and into a more progressive fish and wildlife conservation theme; designating non-game species for protection and on the appended schedule; and additional measures to protect bears -- for example, no shooting of bears in dens, no shooting of bears while swimming, and I think most Ontarians would be shocked and surprised to hear that was possible, and no possession of bear gall bladders, which we know are being traded in some cases for traditional Asian medicines. We also appreciate that the new act was intended to be non-controversial in that it would only include those things where there was agreement among conservation groups. I know this was Mr Hodgson's wish, and I presume it is now Mr Snobelen's as well.

Nevertheless, I'm here today to propose one specific amendment that would improve Bill 139 and that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Ontarians. It is regarding the spring bear hunt. I want to make clear that WWF proposes this amendment not as an anti-hunting measure but as an ethical hunting measure to ensure what is called fair chase.

Fair chase is not a new principle to this act. For example, a hunter must make a reasonable effort to retrieve game. A hunter must kill it humanely, must hunt in seasons when game animals by and large do not have dependent young, must not shoot waterfowl with a rifle, etc. These are all fair chase provisions aimed at ethical hunting, and obviously not anti-hunting.

What are our problems with the spring bear hunt? The black bear is the only large mammal hunted in the spring of the year, which is a carryover from the old days when it was regarded as vermin. Continuing the spring hunt means black bears are hunted six out of eight months when they are not in hibernation, often hungry or in poor condition in the early spring.

In spring, hungry bears are lured to baits of meat and sweets, then shot at close range by hunters from a blind -- the hunters are often guided or driven out to the blind -- which requires no particular skill or natural knowledge of the animal or the bush. Spring baiting creates bears habituated to human foods which then become problem bears later in the summer, when they are often killed as a nuisance.

Dogs are sometimes used to chase bears, harass them, corner them, attack them -- which can be dangerous not only to the bears but to the dogs -- or to tree a bear, and the bear is then simply shot out of the tree. Often radio telemetry is used to locate the dogs, and therefore the bear. Chase by dogs may mobilize and disturb female bears more than usual in the spring, and there's growing concern in the scientific literature about what baiting and mobilizing bears in the spring with dogs does to their natural movement and ecology.

Approximately one third of the bears killed in the spring are females, which is always the most conservation-sensitive segment of the population. Although it is illegal to kill females with cubs, this inevitably does happen, and often females may protect cubs by leaving them behind and going into the bait alone. Cubs are orphaned; they die of starvation or predation. All this for a 90% non-resident hunt which is therefore not part of what could be legitimately regarded as Ontario's hunting heritage.

We are aware of counterarguments that this kind of hunt is more humane because of a clean shot at close range, but find this unpersuasive. This is clearly not fair chase, not hunting in any ethical sense of the word, which is why many hunters, including myself, find it distasteful and would never participate in it. Neither does any aboriginal person I know of in Ontario or in Canada.

I believe the spring bear hunt is as degrading to those who participate in it as it is to the bears themselves. This view is even more strongly reflected in Ontario public opinion. Although only 11% of Ontarians hunt, 34% are prepared to support hunting in principle, but not if it is unfair chase or unethical hunting. That is why 70% are opposed to the spring bear hunt. We've provided you with a recent poll done last week by John Mykytyshyn of Bradgate Research.

WWF is also aware that ending the spring bear hunt may cause economic hardship to a small number of tourist operators who are currently receiving revenue from the hunt. We have more sympathy for this argument. Therefore, if necessary, we are prepared to support a possible phase-out of the spring hunt over one to two years to allow for a transition. Further, WWF represents a funder who will provide major financial support for cooperative pilot projects to effect a transition from the spring bear hunt, especially in partnership with the provincial government, for example, through the northern Ontario heritage trust fund.

These are our specific proposals for amendment of Bill 139, in order of preference:

(1) Ban the use of bait and dogs for hunting bears during all seasons and end the spring bear hunt.

(2) Simply end the spring bear hunt.

(3) Simply ban the use of bait and dogs for hunting bears during all seasons.

Number 1 meets all of our concerns, as our preferred option. Number 2 meets most of our concerns because it ends the spring bear hunt and discontinues bait and dogs when they are most used for hunting bear. Number 3 is third best because, although it bans bait and dogs, it still allows for a spring hunt and orphaning of cubs when females are killed.

I leave it to the committee to choose which option you choose, but I really hope this committee will make a good bill better with one of these specific amendments. Let's give Ontario's bears a spring break.

I've tabled in your package the specific amendments, by section, that we would propose to the bill. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have time for one question from the government side.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you very much for your presentation and thank you for the book, and on behalf of my colleagues. I see that it's signed as well.

I have to say to you that I certainly empathize with your presentation regarding the spring bear hunt. On the one hand, we have to deal with the ethical implications here, which I think bear heavily on all of us. On the other side is the economic reality.

Could you elaborate on what you have in mind in terms of a transition period and how you feel we really can address the financial concerns that affect lives in northern Ontario?

Mr Hummel: As I said, our first proposal is to perhaps phase this in so people are given a chance to transition into a change towards different activities in the spring. Often the hunt is offered in connection with a fishing package, so there are other revenues coming in at that time of the year. Second, we do have a funder who is prepared to invest significantly in specific projects with guide outfitters to help capitalize alternative equipment and to facilitate a transition.

In response to your question, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines recently, at one of the Lands for Life round tables, presented some interesting information as to the economic prospects of ecotourism and moving away from this kind of activity, particularly in the spring. The kinds of numbers we have are: Tourists spend $1.1 billion in northern Ontario annually. Over 26,000 people are employed in this industry. This constitutes 73% of the north's employment, surpassing the mining sector. There are at present over 4,000 accommodation establishments and facilities in northern Ontario, 2,900 in resource-based tourism --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Hummel. We've run out of time.

Mr Hummel: Well, the ministry goes on to say that the direction is towards ecotourism and that this is the growth area, so I think there are economic prospects in this area.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here today.

1030

ANIMAL ALLIANCE OF CANADA

The Vice-Chair: Is Liz White here, Animal Alliance? Good morning and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Liz White: Good morning. My name is Liz White. I'm with an organization called Animal Alliance of Canada. We're a federally incorporated not-for-profit organization. We have about 10,000 supporters in Ontario.

I would like to say initially that we have been working very hard, as many of you know from talking to us and seeing us in the halls, in support of a ban on the spring bear hunt and bait and dogs. But obviously our interest goes much extended into the act in terms of changes.

We also participated in some of the discussions regarding the act, and parts of the act reflect those discussions. However, we have some concerns about the act and I'd like to ask for some amendments to the act.

My apologies: There's a highlight of the amendments we're asking for and there are only nine copies of those. But I've also circulated to you an analysis of the fish and wildlife act that was done by Murray Smith. Some of you have Murray's CV. He was previously with the Ministry of Natural Resources doing legislative work for about 18 years. He does a clause-by-clause analysis of the act and I would ask you to refer to that when you're doing the clause-by-clause this afternoon.

I'm just going to touch on some key areas and then we can open it up for questions.

I would like to ask members of the committee to consider adding a new section to the act. The addition would be the issue of sustainability. That is not addressed in the act at all. The amendment we're recommending reads:

"The crown shall ensure that the actions authorized under this act or regulations are compatible with ensuring the ecological sustainability of wildlife which are the subject of those actions and this section should be binding on the crown."

I'm just going to go through a series of amendments. We've included some cleanup of some of the definitions. There's one on the third page, an additional definition, because we feel that the trapping issue does not deal with the rehabilitation situation where animals may be trapped for release. We've offered a suggested amendment definition to that under "other trapping devices."

Under part I, interpretation, clauses 1(2)(b) and (2)(c), we've asked for some amendments, under clause (2)(b) to amend the act to include products and derivatives, such things. It's talking about "reference to the whole or any part of" an animal. The problem is that when it becomes part of a pill or powder -- it's our feeling that the definition then is clarified as to what the intent actually is. It's the whole animal, part of the animal, and any derivative that comes from the plant or animal that may be discussed in that.

Under the amendments that cover black bears in dens, we suggest that subsection 8(5) be amended because it allows the minister essentially to contravene that part of the act. We're suggesting that it read: "The minister may authorize a person to conduct specific activities that would otherwise be prohibited by this section, subject to regulations." Essentially, that would mean it's not a blanket exemption. It's trying to say that there may be circumstances under which those exemptions may have to happen, but it must be related to specific activities and it has to be subject to regulation; it just can't be a blanket exemption.

With regard to trespassing under section 10, we're asking for a new addition. Land owners complain of dogs being allowed to run through their property to flush out deer. This amendment I think addresses that. I'm asking that you consider that.

"Obstruction of hunting, trapping or fishing": This is an outright prohibition of tampering, I suppose, with trapping lines or whatever. I would suggest to you that's seriously problematic. If my dog were caught in a trap, I can tell you I would take it out, and I would be in contravention of the act. I'm asking that that be changed to say, "A person shall not interfere with the lawful hunting, trapping and fishing, except in circumstances prescribed by regulation," so that there's an ability to address particular circumstances under which somebody might take on that activity.

The baiting: This act does not address baiting of bears. In order to be able to regulate it, I think that's an important aspect. Whether you consider to ban it or not, if you don't consider to ban it I think it's an important activity to regulate. We regulate virtually everything else with regard to big game species, and the baiting of bears is not outlined here. We've recommended two amendments as outlined under the baiting of black bears. I won't read them.

We're asking for two additions to section 23, with swimming bears, and that no person shall hunt black bears under two years of age; those are cubs. Many other provinces have that provision. Most other provinces do not allow a bear hunted under a year of age.

The other area that many provinces deal with is that no person shall hunt black bears that are in family groupings; in other words, it's where there are cubs and mothers involved. In many circumstances, many provinces do that.

Licensing of dogs: If you're going to license dogs for deer, moose, caribou and elk, you should license them for bears as well.

Private property: This is the defence of property with wildlife. In many other provinces you're not allowed to kill a wild animal in defence of property if it's perceived as being a threat to the property or where it is a threat to property, unless all reasonable measures are taken to mitigate against that animal's activity. We're asking that you remove "or is about to damage" out of that section and insert "only after taking all reasonable measures to discourage wildlife that is damaging the property." We would ask you to add a prohibition on the capturing or killing of endangered species.

There are a number of other exemptions that we have asked for. I want to skip to the last one because I know I'm short on time.

We're asking you to remove subsection 62(6). That provides a massive loophole and exemption with regard to the act and regulations in terms of ministerial authority. We feel that in those circumstances where a minister takes a position that may be in contravention of the act, there are powers already existing that allow that to happen.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I think we have time for one question from the Liberals.

Mr Michael Brown: I particularly appreciate your presentation in light of the fact that you've given us some very specific amendments. Given our time restraints, that's important.

To focus on the first one you've suggested, I know, having gone through Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, that this seems to be where the ministry and where society should be in terms of encouraging ecological sustainability. I wonder if you could expand on that a little for us.

Ms White: It's quite clear the initiatives that are going forward federally, internationally, are to address the issue of sustainability, and that activities globally under CITES, under the biodiversity agreement, under the Brundtland agreement, a number of situations, address the issue of sustainability. I think it behooves us to include that in this particular act as well so that we understand that all the activities encompassed in this act are measured against what is sustainable for the activity and for the species we're talking about.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms White, for coming today.

1040

BEAR ALLIANCE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Ainslie Willock of the Bear Alliance. Good morning, Ms Willock. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Ainslie Willock: My name is Ainslie Willock. I'm very pleased to be here and have this opportunity to speak with you to present the Bear Alliance's comment on Bill 139. I sit on the Canadian General Standards Association's trap development committee. I participated in the eastern and western black bear workshops and a recent conference on bear-human conflicts, and the Bear Alliance was part of some Ontario bear stakeholder meetings.

You have copies of my presentation. Included at the back, you'll find a statement that was released by the previous Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Chris Hodgson; the Quebec government's new bear management plan, which we're just waiting to be signed into law; and also a paper that was prepared by a number of managers, biologists etc that was presented at the western black bear workshop in 1973.

That, as you can probably guess, discusses the issues of the spring bear hunt and the use of bait and dogs to hunt animals. As resource managers, they are confronted with the general public's concerns and the hunters' concerns and they felt it was important to have a discussion document. It's really quite interesting to review.

We're very pleased that this government has seen fit to make changes to its wildlife act, something that has not taken place for many years. We're also very pleased if this bill will actually ban the possession of black bear galls and allow government to protect animals that originate in other provinces. These measures and others are long overdue. We applaud the government for its responsible actions to stop the trade on bear parts. However, we want to make sure that this act actually accomplishes those aims. Consequently, in order to make best use of the time, I'm going to concentrate on the areas we have problems with rather than talking in glowing terms about all the things we like about the bill.

One of our first major concerns has already been referred to by Liz White, and that's subsection 62(6). This section, which allows the minister to overrule all aspects of the act, would mean that you could literally have no hunting and fishing in this province if the minister wished or you could have hunting and fishing with no restrictions, so I think this is something that all politicians and all stakeholders should have real concerns about. I think we need a real act with real regulations and prohibitions. The minister or a future minister could overrule any ban on the sale and possession of black bear galls, for instance. We recommend that this part of the act, subsection 62(2), be removed. The act does not manage wildlife in a sustainable manner, and again Liz White adequately dealt with that subject.

The other concern is loopholes in the act. It's on page 3 of my presentation. I have repeated what was actually in the Honourable Chris Hodgson's press release. Well, I don't know that it was a press release, but it was a statement as to how Bill 139 would actually help black bears. There were a number of excellent measures there. My concern is that these measures really won't be reflected in the act because of loopholes. One example, as I understand it, is that it may be possible for someone to farm grizzly bears in Ontario and then sell their gall bladders for the parts trade. I'd like a reassurance that that wouldn't be allowed under this act.

The next major area is ethics and bears and this act. The act prohibits the hunting of bears when they're swimming. We applaud the minister for making an ethical decision to ensure that bears are not hunted when they are vulnerable. However, the ministry doesn't even collect data on how many bears would actually be affected; they don't know how many are shot when they're swimming. But we do know that in 1995 about 7,000 bears were shot as they were eating at bait sites, and certainly they're vulnerable when they're eating. We also know that one out of nine bears was wounded. To me there's no difference between the vulnerability of a black bear when it's swimming and the vulnerability when it's eating. We don't hunt any other large mammal over bait, and baiting doesn't ensure a humane kill and it doesn't prevent females from being killed. About 30% of the bears killed are female and most are shot over bait.

Wildlife managers observed, in the Tom Beck discussion paper I included, that the public view hooking an animal to an artificial food source and then blasting it away as similar to worm fishing at a fish hatchery. There simply is no sport. The act must have a clear prohibition against baiting bears, and I've included a draft of what I thought that amendment might be.

The spring bear hunt: Bears are the only large game animal hunted in the spring, a time when the females have dependent young and are mating. The Ministry of Natural Resources estimates that 274 cubs, four to five each day of the spring hunt, are orphaned. These cubs die a painful death. Bears can lose up to 40% of their body weight after hibernation -- that's mothers -- and are readily attracted to bait sites. They're the only large game animal that are hunted six months of the year. The only way to prevent orphaning is to ban the spring hunt. Clearly, there are ethical reasons to ban the spring hunt and the act needs to be amended to do so. I've again suggested an amendment.

The use of dogs to hunt bears: Dogs are used to hunt, chase, corner and attack bears. They can even start that chase at a bait station. Again, it's the only large mammal which dogs are permitted to chase and attack. Once Quebec's new black bear management plan, which I've included, is signed into law, only the NDP government in British Columbia will allow dogs to hunt bears. It's time that Ontario banned the use of dogs. Both the bears and the dogs are injured and killed in this unsportsmanlike, unethical practice. Again I've suggested an amendment.

Hunting bear cubs and family groups in the fall: In the fall, bear cubs are actually still nursing. They're not dependent on their mother for food, but they are still nursing. Some 11% of the bears shot in the fall are cubs and 77% are shot over bait. Clearly, these animals are babies and haven't even gone through their first hibernation. The Yukon and British Columbia governments have prohibitions on killing cubs under two years of age; the Northwest Territories, Alberta and Manitoba prohibit the killing of cubs under one year of age. I've made a recommendation that no person shall hunt black bears under two years of age or in a family grouping.

Wildlife managers are seen to be quite inconsistent when they allow certain species to be treated one way and then another a different way. It's only black bears that haven't been afforded the same kind of protection as other big game species. The state of Colorado had a citizen initiative to ban the spring bear hunt and the use of bait and dogs; 70% of voters supported a ban on these practices. Polls show that the public had a concern for the health of the population and fair play. Ontario polls indicate that the majority of the public oppose these practices here as well. Bears have the second-slowest rate of reproduction of any North American land mammal. They're solitary and live in the forest, so they are notoriously difficult to count. Consequently, we can't take them for granted and we must be very cautious in our management plans.

Quebec's bear situation is comparable to Ontario's, yet they have implemented a new black bear management plan and acknowledge that they're seriously concerned about the viability of their population. Ontario needs to take similar measures.

Bear-human conflict: Bears come into conflict with humans when they are hungry from a shortage of natural food. Many Ontario residents don't know how to react when they see a bear that has been attracted to food sources on their properties. Even biologists only learned about the true nature of bears about 13 years ago when Dr Lynn Rogers began walking with bears. Bears are solitary animals whose main concerns are eating and avoiding other bears.

Bill 139 would make it legal to kill these bears even when there has been no demonstrated damage to property or threat of personal injury. We need long-term solutions. We need to do the preventive work by removing the attractant food and educating the public about bear behaviour. In most cases, shooting the bear just creates an opportunity for another bear to become a problem. Again I've indicated how you could amend the act to achieve that end.

My last comment is about polar bears in the act. Polar bears aren't listed in this act and I'd like a clarification as to what would protect polar bears in Ontario.

I'd like to thank this committee very much for this opportunity and I look forward to the bill passing into legislation with the amendments we've offered.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. You've effectively exhausted your time available. Thank you for coming.

TORONTO WILDLIFE CENTRE

The Vice-Chair: I now call upon the Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals, Nathalie Karvonen. Good morning and welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Ms Nathalie Karvonen: I'm here with permission from CAFA. I'm actually with the Toronto Wildlife Centre -- I'm the executive director of the Toronto Wildlife Centre -- and I'm also a biologist. I have a honours BSc in biology from the University of Guelph.

There are a few points I wanted to address today. In section 40, I would strongly recommend that there be a change in the wording to "any animal wild by nature." Under the current wording that has been proposed, it does allow for a person to keep captive bobcats, coyotes, foxes, lynx, wolves and other animals. I'm sure we can all agree that there are situations where that would be problematic. Just a week and a half ago, we were dealing with a situation at the Toronto Wildlife Centre where a woman had a wild, captive adult lynx in her home with her two small children and she was reluctant to give it up for whatever her personal motivations were, but under wording like this she would be allowed to do so.

1050

I think either changing the wording or changing the wording and then simply adding, "with the authorization of the minister," might rectify this problem. Also, in clause 40(2)(b), when it talks about animals "in captivity for the purpose of personal education," I would strongly suggest here that there be an addition to this section of "with the authorization of the minister."

I am especially concerned with the section that lists the specially protected mammals here. One of the specially protected mammals which you have listed is the big brown bat and many other species of bats, which are potential rabies vector animals. I would hate to see children being allowed to take home bats or whatever other situation you would classify as personal education. People often do things like this without even realizing what type of situation they are putting themselves, other family members and friends into. I think simply adding, "with authorization of the minister," would take care of this problem.

There are other animals that are covered under specially protected mammals, such as chipmunks and northern flying squirrels, which, if they were found as babies and kept for the purpose of personal education and released -- there's also an exemption for that, I think two pages later -- without permission, you could be releasing potentially nuisance animals or potentially dangerous animals into the population, because these are animals which have probably been tamed, because you do specify a single animal, and therefore would end up being nuisance animals. We see this over and over again in wildlife rehabilitation, when people have raised one single animal by themselves.

The other section that -- actually it is not really a section in here, but I really want to strongly urge you to include a specific section which deals with wildlife removal companies. Forgive me. I'm very tired. I just got back from Milwaukee late last night. I was at the fish and wildlife conference down there, so I'm fumbling a bit. Wildlife removal companies are a really big area of concern for us in wildlife rehabilitation.

I'd really like to see licensing required for wildlife removal companies. If you're keeping track of how these companies are growing, it's a very, very rapidly growing industry. If you open the yellow pages in any major city in North America, you'll see these companies listed. We get about 30,000 phone calls a year at the Toronto Wildlife Centre from members of the public, and a large number of those calls come in, asking about nuisance situations, how to resolve them or what to do in the case where they've hired a wildlife removal company and had problems with them.

The public is under the assumption that these companies right now are licensed, which they are not, and we are finding that to be a problem over and over again. The public is assuming that somebody is watching these companies, somebody is governing what they do and somebody is ensuring that they act and behave properly when they're actually out there at their homes doing their work.

The other really huge problem I have with wildlife removal companies, which I think could be addressed quite well if there was a licensing system, is the fact that a lot of these companies are translocating animals. Almost every company that you see in the yellow pages right now, with the exception of only one that I can think of, trap and relocate wild animals from people's homes. There are a lot of problems with trapping and relocating. There are certainly human health risks, which have been documented. The most commonly known example of this problem would be the raccoon rabies epizootic which is happening right now in the United States.

You are probably all aware that there is a huge raccoon rabies outbreak along the eastern seaboard. This is very well known to have been caused by raccoons which were trapped in Florida and relocated to Virginia, where they were released. The population in Virginia did not have a builtup immunity to this rabies virus which was common in the Florida population. An outbreak occurred and consequently has spread across the eastern seaboard and is now causing a lot of problems. A lot of other wild animals are contracting the rabies virus and there have been some human deaths from this disease as well.

Moving animals around by trapping and relocating them also poses great threats to ecosystems and other endangered species in the areas that these animals are being moved to. Again, the animals in the area don't have builtup immunities or resistance to diseases or parasites which are being brought in by animals from other areas. Right now there is no system for governing what these companies do with these animals. A lot of them are just taking the same animals over and over again to the same area, their favourite park, their favourite forest, and letting them go in sometimes very, very large numbers. Sometimes they are going to their cottage and they let them go on the way to the cottage. Consequently, these animals can be moved quite far.

Increasingly the public is looking for non-lethal solutions to dealing with nuisance problems with wildlife in their homes and they are looking for companies who will not kill the animals, so therefore they're are very lured by these companies that say that they were humanely trapped and moved out to a nice forest somewhere.

The last problem with trapping and relocating, which is a concern I think to all of us, is the enormous amount of babies generated by moving lactating females out of the area where her babies are located. Each year this is a problem with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of homeowners, where the adult females are moved out of the area and the babies are left behind. Typically what happens is that the local municipal animal control agency is called upon to pick up these babies. Not only does this create an enormous strain on the resources and money of the local animal control agencies, but also the public is increasingly demanding alternative solutions for this.

Typically an animal control agency will have to not only have a staff member come out and pick up the animal, but then will have to bring it back to the animal control agency. They have to have the cost of having a technician or veterinarian there to euthanize the animals, and this process just happens over and over and over again, if you talk to any of the municipal animal control agencies. It is our tax dollars that are going into cleaning up these situations created by these companies.

I think those are pretty much all the points I wanted to raise. Again, I've heard that there's a new group that has been assigned to assign licensed trappers to deal with wildlife removal, and I just strongly urge that this be dealt with as a separate specific section. Wildlife removal companies, if they are responsible wildlife removal companies, not only just go out and take the animal out of the problematic situation, but work with the homeowners to make sure that there's a long-term solution, make sure that the animal is not going to get back in their attic or another animal will get back in their attic, make sure that there aren't areas of their house that are vulnerable to other species.

If it's a reputable company, they'll recognize problems that have been created by the animal, for example, wires being chewed in an attic. They'll also go in and do a proper, sterile cleanup with proper cleaning agents which will eliminate any possibility of disease transmission from faeces left behind in an attic or situations like that. I don't think that a typical trapper who is just skilled in trapping animals will have the enormously broad knowledge base that these companies working in a very builtup, urban situation will have to deal with. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I think we have time for a quick question.

Ms Martel: If you were going to license such companies, what would be some of the conditions that you would have around licensing?

Ms Karvonen: There is actually already a group of wildlife removal companies that is coming together on their own and they are actually suggesting that they have a self-regulatory system as a lot of other types of organizations do. They are proposing things like classroom education training; that they will have to have a certain number of classroom hours where they will learn about all the different aspects of wildlife removal and wildlife control, especially in urban areas. They'll have to write a written exam, and I would imagine have to do a practical exam of sorts as well. They also have included a continuing education component because this is a situation that's always changing as cities are always changing. Those were the main things that they brought up.

I think that education is a really big part of it, the fact that they have the knowledge to draw from, that there is an official licence that they will have which they can put in their ads, they can show to members of the public, and also a tool that we can use to say to members of the public, "If you're looking for a reputable company, look for this licence."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Karvonen, for coming here today.

1100

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on David McLaren, the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Good morning, Mr McLaren, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr David McLaren: Thank you very much. I'll see how quickly I can talk. I'm going to have to refer to the brief in many instances with respect to specifics, so I'll tell you what page I'm on when I get there. Our chief concern is with subsection 62(6), and the quote is here. It's in the middle of the first page: "The minister may, in an authorization given under this act, permit for the purpose of the authorization any act or omission that would otherwise contravene this act or the regulations."

It's clear and self-explanatory and begs the question, why bother with the legislation? There is a great danger here that the minister, not the Legislature, not even cabinet, can authorize anything that would contravene the act. We are especially worried about the ramifications for specially protected species, the management of fish and wildlife, and the potential for delegating ministerial management authority and responsibilities to non-MNR staff. Right now there is only one section that prevents him from delegating his job to non-MNR staff when this Bill 139 is passed.

It is section 7(l) of the Ministry of Natural Resources Act which, so far at least, allows the minister to delegate responsibility to MNR staff only. There were apparently earlier draft amendments that would have allowed the minister to delegate his authority to persons and organizations outside the MNR, which is evidence that there is a willingness there in the MNR to do that.

Nevertheless, the effect of Bill 139, as it is written, may well be a delegation of MNR management responsibilities to groups outside the MNR. However, before we ask who these groups might be and why we should be worried, let's look at some specifics. I'll skip down a couple of paragraphs.

Section 31(2) allows a property owner to "use an agent to harass, capture or kill" wildlife the land owner believes is about to damage his property. However, 62(6), the one we just targeted, may mean the agent authorized by the minister may contravene section 31(1) and any other section of the act, including the prohibition against harassing, killing or capturing the animals listed in section 31(3), including, it would appear, specially protected wildlife.

Section 61(1) allows the minister to "authorize a person to issue licences on the minister's behalf." Now, the Canadian Environmental Law Association is not against allowing local marinas, tackle shops and hardware stores to issue fishing licences, although we wish there were a better way of controlling the large number of anglers who pressure a fishery. However, will this section also allow the minister to delegate to anyone one of his primary tools for conserving Ontario's natural resources? If so, it appears to fly in the face of section 7 of the Ministry of Natural Resources Act, which restricts such delegation to the deputy minister or any other employee of the MNR. It may be one thing to have the trappers' association licensing its members, but it's quite another to have members of a rod and gun club doing it. If such persons can, under section 61(1), would their delegated authority extend to issuing aboriginal communal fishing licences?

Section 62 provides no comfort to this concern, for it is this section, section 62(6), that permits the minister, by means of authorizations, to do virtually what he wants, including, it must be assumed, authorizing anyone to do it, even, for example, to hunt, trap and fish without a licence which is under section 66.

Section 87 is the appointment of conservation officers, which I believe is a problem under the Game and Fish Act as well as under this one. Again, if 62(6) prompts the minister to authorize other than MNR employees to carry out some of these functions, there is great potential for chaos in the field.

The next section deals with the impact of Bill 139 on specially protected species. Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act seems to be a way of protecting the specially protected species listed in the schedules of Bill 139: Where there is a conflict between Bill 139 and the Endangered Species Act, the "provision that gives the animal, invertebrate or fish the most protection prevails." The trouble is, there are very few species and in fact no fish designated as specially protected under Bill 139 that are also designated as endangered under the ESA, and there are no fauna and no fish, as I said, designated as specially protected. So there is virtually no conflict between the two acts.

That leaves most of the species listed as specially protected under Bill 139 at the mercy of the minister, by virtue of 62(6). Also, in 31(6), for the sake of defence of private property, quoting from the act, "Sections 5 and 6, clauses 11(1)(a) to (d), section 27 and such other provisions of this act and the regulations as are prescribed by the regulations do not apply to a person who harasses, captures or kills wildlife under this section." That's under section 31, private property. However, section 5 prohibits the hunting or trapping of specially protected species and section 6 requires a licence to hunt or trap. Both sections are waived for someone who is protecting their property.

We have a number of other specific concerns with respect to Bill 139 and specially protected species, but the short of it is that when it comes to the protection of endangered or specially protected species, Bill 139 does not improve on the Endangered Species Act and, in our opinion, Ontario's endangered species remain in danger.

Page 4, "Whom Does the Act Benefit?" puts the act in the context and I think details why we are concerned that the MNR will devolve management responsibility to the recreational industry.

The values that emerge from Bill 139 favour the protection of private property as opposed to the protection of wildlife while ensuring reasonable protection of property and the recreational use of fish and wildlife to the exclusion of other users, including first nations who, as it happens, have constitutional aboriginal and treaty rights to Ontario's fish and wildlife. We notice in the list of who was consulted in the drafting of this bill, and how they were consulted, the recreational industry was well consulted but first nations were simply sent information. I am told by the Chiefs of Ontario office that they did not even receive a notice. This we find exclusionary, given the priority nature of aboriginal rights under the 1982 Constitution Act.

In an internal memo, the management committee of the MNR received this advice:

"If Ontario is genuinely interested in conservation of wildlife and fish or in facilitating hunting and fishing for sports purposes by the public generally, and if the exercise of control over the taking of wildlife and fish by persons who have aboriginal and treaty rights to do so is an element in the attainment of effective conservation or facilitation of hunting and fishing for sports purposes, Ontario must amend its laws."

Apparently the MNR feels native rights to fish and wildlife are an impediment to hunting and fishing for sport purposes.

We have serious concerns that the broad powers given the minister under Bill 139 will eventually lead, without further consultation with other users, to the devolution of ministerial management authority to the recreational industry. We do not believe this will forward the public interest in conservation of fish and wildlife and we believe it will be prejudicial to the constitutionally protected priority rights of first nations who have found themselves, to put it kindly, at odds with many sportsmen's organizations.

The next section offers more evidence of our concerns. The makeup and the mandate of the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board is troublesome. It is predominantly made up of representatives from the recreational fishery and it apparently has more than just a say on how those funds are spent. According to Phil Morlok, its mandate extends to commenting on the distribution of other funds from consolidated revenue for the purpose of fish and wildlife management and advising the minister on other proposed policies or programs related to fish and wildlife.

At the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' annual meeting in February 1997, the Minister of Natural Resources, Chris Hodgson, listed the following promises the MNR has kept to that federation. There's a list here and the bottom three are more partnership programs with OFAH clubs, especially in managing hatcheries; to review how the MNR can improve customer service by meeting with dozens of sportsmen's groups; to meet with OFAH clubs about their concerns about fisheries in Lake Simcoe and Lake Huron.

Then the minister outlined the four goals of the MNR: first, overcoming impediments to fishing and hunting; second, to increase opportunities for sportsmen; third, marketing Ontario's natural resources; and fourth, improving communications between the MNR and the OFAH. The MNR will achieve these goals, he said, alongside its partners from the OFAH. The ministry is in the midst of a transition to privatization, for example, hatchery management, and in this vein resource-based tourism will become a major component of land use management.

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr McLaren. I'd like to remind you that you're almost at the end of your time.

Mr McLaren: All right. You will notice that none of these goals speaks of conservation. We believe the cosy relationship between the MNR and the recreational industry will, if Bill 139 becomes law, swiftly progress to a legislatively blessed partnership. We believe that, in such a partnership, conservation will be very poorly served.

There is some scientific evidence for our concerns regarding how the ministry has dealt with certain management practices around stocking, and then our summary.

1110

WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon our next deputant, Mike McIntosh, the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Good morning, Mr McIntosh. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Mike McIntosh: I would like to thank the Chair and the committee for allowing me to have a few moments to talk to you today. There have been many good points made on this important bill. One thing I'd like to emphasize is that the bill is important and we have to persevere and get it through.

My name is Mike McIntosh. I am representing the World Society for the Protection of Animals, commonly known as the WSPA. I operate an organization called Bear With Us, which is a sanctuary and rehabilitation centre for bears, and I work solely with bears.

In front of you, you have two photographs, or a combination of, plus a brochure called Bear Safe. This past summer, WSPA published this brochure as an information vehicle for people who want to learn how to coexist with bears in central and northern Ontario and it has been extremely well received. I was a partner in that because when people had a bear problem, I received the calls.

Next year, 1998, will be my seventh season working with wild bears. Each year there are 100 to 120 nuisance bear calls that I receive. I relocate approximately 10% of the potential nuisance problems.

I have a close working relationship with the local Ministry of Natural Resources office in my area, which is Huntsville, or the Parry Sound district. It results in success in the education of the public to coexist with bears in the summertime. Many times we're talking about cottagers who only come up on the weekends or for a brief period of time, and just as often, we're talking about permanent residents. I receive 10 to 30 bear cubs and wounded adults every year for rehabilitation and returning to the wild.

As I mentioned before, there have been some excellent recommendations on how to improve this important bill. Because I work as a rehabilitator, what I see encompasses a lot of what we've already heard. The first picture you see in front of you, if you want to pick it up, please, is a very, very thin grizzly bear. That grizzly bear resided in Ontario for the last 10 to 12 years. That bear is an example of what happens when circuses don't want their animals any more. You can basically give the animal or sell the animal to anybody who has the money.

I think it's important that in Bill 139 we make a clause that eliminates the sale and breeding of captive wildlife, native or non-native to Ontario, regardless of origin, except by accredited zoos.

This bear wouldn't have been in the condition you see him in when I received him on October 2 of this year if it were illegal to purchase, sell or give for free wildlife for the purpose of pets, native or non-native, in Ontario. We're talking about captive animals.

Another thing I'd like to comment on is the cruelty involved in using penned wildlife to train dogs for hunting, and examples of methods being used to acquire certain species for this practice. I know of people who are using these compounds, building fences to house coyotes and wolves and putting bales of straw up and trying to bait wild coyotes and wolves into the enclosure by having them jump over the fence so they can train other people's dogs on them for money.

As already mentioned, methods of bear hunting in Ontario raise questions regarding ethics, cruelty, the orphans and the body parts trade. In my area, I often get calls about a bear that's found with its paws cut off and the gall bladder out.

I would recommend an end to bait and dogs when it comes to hunting bears, and the spring bear hunt, plus the implementation of controls for kill-trapping of bears, because right now there is no requirement for reporting how many bears are trapped.

One of the defences of baiting that is commonly used is that it allows the hunter to see the bear, pick his bear and then shoot it. Incredibly enough, there are over 1,200 bears wounded and lost by hunters every year. These are MNR statistics. That's 1,200 out of 8,000 to 8,500 estimated to be killed. It's a very high percentage, which indicates that baiting isn't working.

I spend a lot of my spare time working with so-called problem bears. We need laws requiring controls, accountability and requirements for solving the issues regarding problem bears in a responsible manner. I would recommend changing the law to make it legal to kill a bear in defence of property only after accepted methods have been tried and exhausted to remedy the problem without killing the bear. One of the reasons I recommend this is I also know of people who leave fish out in their backyards so it will attract a bear. Then they shoot the bear and the excuse is, "It was a nuisance." It's a huge loophole and there are a lot of bears shot simply because they are trained to be a nuisance on purpose.

I also mentioned I rehabilitate bears. Bill 139 has indicated a need for and a recognition of rehabilitators. We need to recognize that need for the animal species, plus the education to the public. I think licensing and standards should be encouraged, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources should be aware of the activities of rehabilitators and wildlife sanctuaries. That's because, as wildlife rehabilitators, we've got to make sure that we do what's good for the species as a whole as well as the individual. When it comes to relocating animals, moving animals around, we have to be cognizant of the possibility of transmitting diseases and creating problems in the current population.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much for your presentation today, Mr McIntosh. You're probably aware that the act will authorize rehabilitation, which today is kind of a cloudy area, rehabilitation and reintroduction of animals.

I'd like your comments on a question that was asked previously about the bear hunt and the aspects around that. A phasing-out was suggested; a serious look at it was suggested. The other side of that question, of course, is the economic impact that it has on the industry in the area that is currently involved in it. Could you comment on any of those areas?

Mr McIntosh: I'd be happy to comment. There actually probably would be help available to the very small and limited industry that's involved in the bear hunting, specifically the spring bear hunt. Other jurisdictions in both Canada and the US have either had this hunt eliminated or not at all, and bear hunters have adapted to it, such as they have adapted to not having the use of bait or dogs available.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you. A most interesting presentation. I wonder if you could tell us, in your experience, whether you believe black bears in the area of Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Huntsville -- if the population is sustainable. Is it growing, about static or is it dropping?

Mr McIntosh: That's a very tough question to answer accurately because black bears are very hard to count. I don't think we can ever assume that we can just keeping on killing them and there's going to be lots, because we heard the same about cod fish, and just lately, over the last three years, they've suddenly found out they've hunted way too many moose.

I don't think, when you talk about ethics and the quality of the hunt that's carried out, the population should even be the question. This isn't an anti-hunt issue that I'm talking about here. I think the majority of the hunters are quite dismayed at the way the bear hunt is carried out, other than the bear hunters, that is.

Ms Martel: Earlier in your comments -- and I apologize if I have this wrong -- you made note that you can -- I don't think "gift" was the word, but I put "gift of wildlife for free in the province right now." Was that what you said, or did I miss it?

Mr McIntosh: That's exactly what I said. If I have the money, I can buy a tiger or a cougar or a lion or any bear that didn't come from Ontario. Not too long ago there was a man who purchased a number of bears from British Columbia. He lives in Ontario in a rural area and his plan was to send them to China for the bear bile farms. So this cross-jurisdictional irregularity in the law is something that we need to tighten up.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McIntosh.

1120

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to have the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Chris Brousseau, Rick Morgan and Terry Quinney. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to the standing committee. I'd ask you to introduce yourselves individually for the purpose of Hansard.

Mr Rick Morgan: We appreciate the opportunity to be with you and to express our optimism and our concerns with respect to Bill 139.

My name is Rick Morgan. I'm the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Next to me is Chris Brousseau. Chris Brousseau is our special adviser on conservation issues. He's a biologist and a former district manager with the Ministry of Natural Resources. Next to him is Dr Terry Quinney. Dr Quinney is also a biologist. He's our provincial coordinator for fish and wildlife services and a former professor at the University of Guelph.

A little bit about the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters: We are a membership-driven organization. We have 74,000 dues-paying members across the province. In addition, we are a coalition of clubs. We have 570 member clubs, again all dues-paying clubs, all with the opportunity to help set the federation policy.

As with many of the speakers before, we believe Bill 139 is basically a good bill. In the interests of time, we will not dwell on all of the things that we feel are good about the bill. We will say it is long overdue. In the interests of time, however, we will tell you some of the shortcomings that we feel exist with the bill and which we hope you can address as you look at clause-by-clause amendments this afternoon. Mr Brousseau will read our presentation.

Mr Chris Brousseau: The written submission that we've made to you outlines the sections of the bill that we support; however, I'd like to bring to your attention four amendments that we are seeking.

The first has to do with the importation of live food fish. We feel section 53 should be amended by adding live food fish to animals requiring a permit or licence before being transported into Ontario. The reason for this is that tons of exotic live food fish enter Ontario from the US destined for Metro Toronto restaurant markets. Currently, there's no means of controlling this trade and very little is known about the volume, species and potential impacts on native fish communities. We also have a concern regarding the escape of fish from fish farms that was mentioned earlier.

We'd like to see wild turkeys added to the list of species that cannot be killed in defence of property. In some areas wild turkeys are causing minor crop damage but we do not believe it is appropriate to allow their killing or capture for this reason. If wild turkeys are causing damage in some areas, we believe that the property owner should notify the Ministry of Natural Resources, who could use these sites for the trapping and transfer of birds to new locations.

Under dog training and trialing, the OFAH supports the regulation of hunting dogs and trialing areas. The use of large private enclosures for training and trialing hunting dogs is a legitimate and responsible means of containing dogs, especially where such enclosures avoid potential conflicts with neighbouring property owners. We believe that grandfathering is inappropriate and these facilities should be allowed to continue under regulation.

Deer farming: We feel the act should be amended to remove white-tailed deer from the definition of "farmed animals." A stronger regulatory mechanism is needed in the legislation to regulate exotic deer farming and prohibit it where necessary. Ontario's white-tailed deer are threatened by the importation, captivity and trade in deer.

A note we'd like to add is that we support the amendment being forwarded later on this morning by the falconry association.

Members of the committee, comments made this morning have really changed the focus of our presentation. I'd like to point out that some animal rights groups are using Bill 139 as a platform to launch yet another attack on our cultural heritage.

They are using this opportunity to spread more information about bear hunting and management. This information they provided is largely misinformation. These groups have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on misinformation campaigns to influence public opinion on bear hunting. The money spent in these campaigns is much more than the entire Ministry of Natural Resources bear research budget.

There is no crisis in bear management in Ontario. Black bear populations are healthy and sustainable. Ontario's bears number between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and are stable and increasing in some areas.

Hunters are responsible for raising the status of bears from unprotected vermin to valued and protected game animals. Before 1961, the province offered bounties for killing bears. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has worked hard to change the negative attitudes to those of respect for the bear as a valuable big game animal and the associated economic, social and biological benefits of a well-managed harvest system.

Black bear hunting is controlled by seasons, licensing and restrictions on where and how you can harvest bears. In 1995, the 13,000 resident hunters and almost 13,000 non-resident hunters spent close to $2 million dollars on licence fees alone -- money that goes directly into fish and wildlife management. Licence revenues raised through hunting pay for bear research, management and enforcement of the laws.

During the spring bear season, it is illegal to shoot cubs born in the year of the hunt or females accompanied by such cubs. The use of dogs to hunt black bears in the spring season is restricted in most parts of Ontario. Bears cannot be shot near waste disposal sites, in their dens, and now, under Bill 139, while swimming.

A non-resident hunter using the hunting services of a bear tourist operator must hunt on a black bear management area assigned to the operator and report, by law, the results of their hunt. A mail survey is done each year to track hunter numbers, success rates and other information used for managing black bear.

The use of bait is the most utilized form of hunting. In many areas, it is the only way to hunt bear due to dense bush. The bait attracts the bear close to the hunter to enable the hunter to estimate the sex and age of the animal, ensure that there are no cubs accompanying adult females, which usually precede the female to the bait anyway, and allows for a clean kill due to short range and lack of obstructions in the hunter's view. Incidents of cubs orphaned because of hunting are exaggerated. The number of breeding females that come to the baits are quite small. When you subtract the immature females under the age of 6 or 7, the ones that are not bred that year, the ones that have already lost their cubs due to natural causes, the number of breeding females that come to bait is very small, maybe only 1% or 2%.

Then the hunter has the opportunity to select the bear. In 1995, resident hunters saw almost 18,000 bears, yet harvested only about 2,000. They passed up over 16,000 bears. Only one in four hunters actually harvested a bear. There is a tremendous amount of selectivity by the hunter. No hunter wants to shoot a bear with cubs.

Use of hounds for bear hunting allows hunters to select for size and sex of treed bears.

The spring hunt is an important component of the hunt. It provides hunting opportunities at a time when other hunting is not allowed. It provides economic benefits to the tourism industry at a slow time of year and allows many of the tourist businesses to stay afloat. I won't go into detail, but all biological indices point to a bear population that is stable or increasing.

Bear hunting contributes over $30 million to the Ontario economy annually and employs over 500 people directly.

I just want you to answer the question of what would happen to the bear population if the spring hunt were stopped. While I'm not going to discuss the loss of hunting opportunities for the 25,000 bear hunters in Ontario, along with the lost socioeconomic benefits, or the millions of dollars that would be lost to the fragile tourism industry in the Ontario economy, I want to talk about bear biology.

Some people would like you to believe that bear populations would increase and papa bear, mamma bear and baby bear would live happily every after. Social cohesion of bears, however, only exists in fairy tales. In real life, papa bear eats mamma and baby bears. The incidence of cannibalism is higher in non-hunted bear populations. When bear populations expand and territorial boundaries are crossed, female bears and their cubs are killed and cannibalized by aggressive, dominant male bears. Cannibalism replaces hunting and the density of the black bears is similar in both hunted and non-hunted populations.

Each year hundreds of nuisance bears are either relocated, only to become a problem somewhere else, or they are shot and wasted by government officials and people protecting their property. Nuisance bears are mostly subadult male bears that have not established home ranges. Most bears harvested during the spring bear hunt are similar subadults that have not established home ranges. The spring bear hunt helps keep the numbers of these bears in check and cuts down on the number of nuisance bears.

If the spring bear hunt was halted, we can expect an increase in the number of nuisance bears -- more damage to cottages, homes, crops, more bears shot and wasted and, very important, more human-bear interactions and more likelihood of human injury and death. Six people in Ontario have been killed by bears in the last 20 years, including a 20-year-old student near Cochrane in 1992, three teenagers in Algonquin Park in 1978, and two campers in Algonquin Park in 1991. Most bear attacks on humans occur where bears are not hunted.

May I just say that there's a split among hunters on the question of bear hunting. To back their claims, they point to the Ontario Fair Chase League, an organization formed to educate the public about the responsible behaviour of most hunters. The first issue was dedicated to criticisms of bear hunting using all kinds of authorities. Let me read to you some notes taken during a meeting attended by representatives from the Animal Alliance of Canada and World Wildlife Fund, among others, with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists copied on the material:

"Discussion about the necessity for continuing the Fair Chase League revolved around what we could expect in return for the expenditure of approximately $16,000 for 10,000 newsletters and a mail-in card. While it was agreed that we could not predict what kind of response this tactic would have, it was agreed that creating the impression that Ontario hunters don't like spring, bait and dogs would be very useful in persuading the committee to amend the bill."

The committee referred to is you.

I have attached the notes for your information. You may find it interesting that these organizations spoke about paid media campaigns, letter campaigns, polling, financially supporting delegates to the PC Party annual meeting to bring up a policy resolution regarding hunting, cultivating experts to attend committee hearings and, if all else fails, legal action against the government and a "take 'em out" campaign to defeat targeted PC MPPs in the next election. The objective of these meetings was to force Bill 139 to hearings so they could forward their anti-hunting agenda.

1130

Hunting conservation organizations like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association have been lobbying hard to close the loopholes on the sale in illegal bear parts. Recently, changes were made to the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the sale of black bear parts. We have asked for increased fines for poaching and trafficking in wildlife, something that Bill 139 recognizes.

Bill 139 takes the conservation of bears even further. Black bears will receive additional protection through a prohibition on interfering with black bears in dens and on intentionally damaging or destroying black bear dens. Black bear will also be added to the list of species that may not be hunted while swimming.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we've run out of time.

Mr Brousseau: Just to wrap up, all the concerns raised about bear hunting can be addressed. Section 62 allows the minister to impose conditions such as limiting the species, the area, the time, the circumstances in which the licence applies etc. It allows the minister to manage and regulate the hunt accordingly.

Members of the committee, I just want to say that we would be the first organization to call for more controls if the bear population was threatened in any way. We are the ones who lobbied for the successful management system of the hunt that we have today. Based on the best available information we have, the bear population is stable or increasing in Ontario.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

NORTHERN ONTARIO TOURIST OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Jim Antler of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. Good morning, Mr Antler. Welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Jim Antler: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here today. I have left copies of my brief with the clerk. I want to briefly go through it at this point. There are three main sections. I want to give you a bit of an introduction on the organization and some of the positive things we see in the bill, and I also want to touch on some of the issues relating to the bear hunt that have been mentioned today.

The Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association is a non-profit trade and advocacy association for resource-based tourism businesses, primarily in northern Ontario, although we also have many similar types of businesses in central Ontario. The association itself was formed in 1929 and has been a strong advocate for sound fish and wildlife management and conservation for seven years.

There are roughly 1,600 licensed businesses in northern Ontario in this industry, made up of fishing and hunting camps and lodges, cottage resorts, air services, outpost businesses, canoe and ecotourism outfitters, campgrounds, trailer parks and even those that rent houseboats.

The impact of this industry, including those from the parks system in northern Ontario, was recently estimated at nearly $500 million a year in the resource-based sector, a very important component of northern Ontario's economy.

All these businesses to some extent rely on the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of our province, and they share an interest in Bill 139 and what it will mean to the fish and wildlife of the province. We believe that the bill and the revisions to the existing act are long overdue and we support the bill as an improvement of the conservation and management of the province's fish and wildlife.

Some of the major improvements we see over the existing act include:

Subsection 13(1), which says that interference with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping activities will be prohibited, including tampering with equipment, interfering or putting oneself in a position to interfere with lawful activity or disturbing fish and wildlife.

Subsection 8(1), improving the protection of black bear while in their dens, and also while swimming, under section 23.

Banning the possession of bear galls separate from the carcass, section 50.

Subsection 58(1), banning the possession of fish, wildlife or vertebrates that were taken contrary to the laws of another jurisdiction or removed from another jurisdiction contrary to the laws of that particular jurisdiction. We feel those last two will be of significant assistance in cutting down the illegal trade in animal parts.

Subsection 63(1), authorizing persons to have no more than one licence to hunt major game species: bear, moose, white-tailed deer, caribou and elk.

The recognition in law of the special purpose account to collect fees, fines and royalties under the act, which can also be used for conservation and management of the resource, under section 85.

Also, substantially increasing penalties under the act for various offences and a limitation period for the prosecution of offences. We think that's a major improvement over the existing legislation.

I would like to touch on a number of the issues that have been raised today relating to the bear hunt. As an organization and an industry that does partake in that activity, we're very aware of the pressure and campaigns that have been out there to try and influence people to say that bait and dogs and bear hunting in the spring hunt is a problem in Ontario, but we want to state our support for bear hunting in the province and its economic significance.

In working with the Ministry of Natural Resources experts and researchers, it certainly seems there are no real biological indicators that show the bear hunt is having any negative impact on the bear population in Ontario. There are a number of facts that we've been made aware of that are important for you to consider. Some of those have been mentioned by the OFAH previously.

The provincial bear population is between 75,000 and 100,000, a substantial population. In many cases, those populations are even increasing in local areas. Resident and non-resident hunters' combined harvest -- it fluctuates -- is usually between 5% and 9% of the provincial bear population. That's below the 10% maximum harvest level that MNR's experts say is sustainable, and that 10% figure is also one of the more conservative estimates in North America, as we understand it.

Reference has been made to females being harvested at a rate of 30%. Again, that's well below the 40% threshold that ministry experts feel may be an indicator of overharvest within the population. Yes, it is illegal to shoot cubs born in the year of the hunt and females accompanied by such cubs, and many operators -- I was speaking to one yesterday, as a matter of fact, who, when I mentioned I was coming before the committee, said to me, "When my hunters are over bait, I ask them to wait at least half an hour when they see a bear come into bait so they clearly observe to make sure it's not with cubs, that there are no family grouping there." Many operators ask their hunters to be very selective in terms of watching and observing the bears who come to bait, to make sure the animals they get are not with cubs or in a family unit, as has been referred to.

Bear hunting contributes over $30 million annually to the economy of this province. It provides important revenue and employment opportunities with our industry, especially in both the spring and the fall, which are the sole seasons for many businesses. Those revenues are very important to those seasonal businesses.

In 1995, nearly $2 million was spent on bear hunting licences alone in Ontario, both by residents and non-residents. That money goes directly into the special purpose account that I mentioned before and comes back into bear research, management and conservation of the resource in this province.

As I mentioned earlier, non-residents also have to use the services of a tourist operator or authorized bear guide and hunt on bear management areas assigned to those people. Tourist operators who have BMAs cannot hunt on anybody else's BMA boundary. They have their own areas. Their hunts are very well regulated. There is strict reporting of the results, so the harvest figures are extremely accurate within the industry.

On the issue of baiting, MNR research experts have said to us that they believe baiting is probably the most humane way to hunt bear, because you can observe the animal at close range, you can take the time and look at and determine the sex of the bear that comes to the bait, and it allows for clean shots.

We've worked hard to raise the status of black bear in Ontario, along with the OFAH, to a big game species. We've worked hard over the last few years to close some of the loopholes in the trade and sale of illegal parts. We've requested increased fines and penalties for people who poach wildlife, who traffic in those illegal things, and we've been successful, based on what you see in Bill 139. The bill has gone even farther, protecting bears while swimming, as I mentioned before, interfering with them while in a den or destroying the dens themselves.

Our industry and the hunting community have worked hard to ensure the sustainable management of bear in the province and to increase the protection of the legislation, and we've been successful. Based on the science that we can obtain from the ministry, there's no biological reason to stop the hunt. The minister has the power to regulate conditions under which hunting can occur: licensing, the circumstances under which licences are issued, limits, all those types of things, and if in the future there may be further restrictions needed, the minister and the ministry certainly have the power to do that.

We encourage you to look at the facts in this case, not the emotion, and oppose the amendments that have been put forward to you today that want to restrict either the bear hunt or the issues relating to spring and dogs.

To sum up, we appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today. Our organization has had a long history in fish and wildlife management in Ontario and wanting to make sure those resources are sustainable. After all, that's the livelihood we depend on. We believe the bill is a positive step forward for the fish and wildlife resources of the province and is long overdue, and we would encourage you to pass the bill as soon as possible for the benefit of those resources.

1140

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Antler. One quick question, Mr Brown.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mr Antler. It's good seeing you again. My question is with regard to -- we have had this issue raised by a number of groups today -- sustainability and conservation. I have noticed that both you and the OFAH before you used the words interchangeably. Would you agree? I notice you call for a definition of "conservation" or "sustainability." Could you give us one that you would believe adequate?

Mr Antler: The OFAH has worked a lot on that and probably has done a little more work than we have on that. I've seen the definition they have circulated and it's certainly a good, positive step. The bill refers to "conservation" in a number of ways, and that would certainly be of benefit to the management of fish and wildlife in the province. While I mention in the written brief that it's not in the bill, I also mention that I don't think that's an impediment to moving forward with this legislation. That's something that can be worked on more in the future, to be brought into the mix when the time is right and when those discussions among stakeholders have been carried out.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Antler, for being here today.

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COALITION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on the International Wildlife Coalition, Leslie Bisgould. Good morning, Ms Bisgould, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Leslie Bisgould: Thank you. I'm not going to talk about the bear hunt. That's the first thing I'm going to say. Maybe that will attract some attention.

My name is Leslie Bisgould. I am a lawyer and my practice focuses specifically on cases that involve animals, so I find myself in good company here talking to you this morning and on an issue that I feel comfortable talking about.

I'm here specifically on behalf of the International Wildlife Coalition. IWC is an international organization that works to protect wildlife and the environment. It has offices in Canada, the US, the UK, Sri Lanka and Brazil, and has 10,000 members in Ontario alone.

I'm also a director of a national charitable organization called Zoocheck Canada, which also works on wildlife issues, specifically concerns about wildlife in captivity and in the wild. Zoocheck has several thousand members across the country, most of whom are in Ontario as well.

Several organizations have approached me with respect to Bill 139 and have asked me for a legal opinion as to what Bill 139 is going to bring with respect to wildlife management in Ontario. Having spent significant time reviewing it, considering the implications of the terminology and the procedure employed in the bill, the conclusion I've come to is that I honestly cannot say with any degree of certainty what wildlife law in Ontario is going to be if and when Bill 139 becomes law. I don't mean to sound facetious in saying that; I make that point quite sincerely.

The difficulty is specifically on two levels. First of all, subsection 62(6), about which you've heard a complaint or two this morning already, grants absolute authority to the minister to contravene any of the provisions at all in the legislation. That's a highly unusual step to be taken in legislation, as most of you probably know.

Second, there is a provision in almost all the prohibitive clauses in the legislation that allows for the very prohibited act to be authorized to be committed in accordance with regulations that have yet to be drafted, or publicized certainly, or in accordance with ministerial authority.

These two categories, if I can describe them that way, are of concern for many reasons. First of all, they remove any degree of certainty from this bill. If Bill 139 passes as it is, none of you people, with respect, and none of this in this room can walk out and say, "Here is what wildlife law is in Ontario." We don't know. We don't know until the regulations are out there, because the regulations can allow all the things that we think are being prohibited. We don't know, because the minister at any time can authorize any act that is not prohibited by the regulations. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty as it presently stands. Subsection 62(6) specifically means that a lot of government action is going to be beyond public scrutiny, and that I think is a serious concern.

For these and many reasons that I really don't think I can outline in the probably six and a half minutes I have left, this bill is a major concern. It is contrary to international agreements that the federal government has signed on to, specifically CITES, which you have had mentioned to you today, as well as the convention on biodiversity. Those treaties talk about the very principles that some people have had questions about this morning: sustainability, the precautionary principle. There is no evidence of any of the modern approaches to wildlife management in this bill as it presently stands.

Moreover, the bill violates the very principles that the Ministry of Natural Resources has set out for itself. When the Environmental Bill of Rights was passed several years ago, the 14 ministries that are governed or controlled under it had to prepare statements of environmental values in which they stated their environmental values, to state the obvious. The Ministry of Natural Resources made a number of comments. I have the statement of environmental values here. I'm not going to read it, because it's a number of pages, but they specifically talk about adopting the precautionary principle. They specifically talk about life being connected and that all actions should not be considered in isolation from all others; that terrestrial life has to be protected geographically and over time; that the variety of life, biological diversity, has to be conserved. I submit to you respectfully that that's not happening in Bill 139.

Beyond those two criticisms, there is one more. Bill 139, I'm afraid, is the antitheses of the approach that other jurisdictions are moving toward in wildlife management. I'm sorry to say that, because I'd like to see it differently in Ontario and I wish I could say something different, but I can't.

Beyond the uncertainties that I have described to you as being a problem, there are some certainties that are a problem as well. The certainties are what is excluded from this act absolutely -- a tremendous number of animals. For example, farmed animals are excluded, and the definition of "farm animal" is large: white-tailed deer, elk, bison, fisher, fox, lynx, mink, marten, raccoon or other species, prescribed by the regulations, that are being propagated commercially. If any of these animals are being used for commercial purposes, they are simply out of the scheme. This law does nothing to protect them or to look at how their numbers are being affected by the acts authorized in this legislation.

For those of you who may not own a pet like a lion or jaguar or have not recently been in the market for one, it may come as news to you to know that Ontario is often referred to by those who are in the business of exotic animals as the wild, wild west of Canada. We've heard that on a number of occasions, and the reason Ontario is developing and has probably well earned that reputation is manyfold. Again, with my now remaining three minutes, I won't be able to tell you about all of them, but I'm going to give you one example.

Roadside zoos -- that's a term you may or may not have heard about -- are basically small-scale zoos or menageries that anybody in this province, under the Game and Fish Act and absolutely under Bill 139, can set up. Anybody can buy a jaguar or a lion or a tiger or a camel or a zebra or a mongoose -- and they do in the thousands in this province -- and either keep them as pets or set up a menagerie and invite the public to come and take a look at them. From the best estimates that we've been able to come up with, there are anywhere between 65 and 70 of these facilities throughout Ontario.

What's interesting about it is that all the other provinces, including the less affluent provinces, have taken steps to make sure that this is not happening in their jurisdictions. Quebec has implemented zoo regulations, New Brunswick is in the process of doing it, permits are required in Newfoundland etc. I won't go down the whole list. Ontario is the only province that has been, and remains, completely wide open, wider than other provinces that do allow zoos, because we also allow any private individual to keep these animals for their personal pleasure.

1150

The estimate as to how many people have these kinds of exotic pets is probably close to 10,000 people in the province and many of them have more than one animal. We're talking about the animals that I just listed for you. I'm not kidding -- zebras, mongoose, lions, camels, jaguars, tigers -- these are people's pets throughout the province. Absolutely nothing in this bill speaks to that. There are tremendous concerns from the perspective of the animals and the lifestyles that they live, but even leaving that aside, there is the safety of the people who live in communities where these animals live unregulated, in conditions that are completely unregulated, where you don't even necessarily have to know about them.

Section 40, which I'll refer to very briefly, deals with wildlife in captivity. If you take a quick look through this bill, you may think that these problems are being addressed, but they're not, because the species that are concerned in these menageries or as these private pets don't come within these definitions as they presently exist. Furbearing animals, for example, for some reason I don't know, are excluded from section 40 when talking about wildlife in captivity. They should be in there; I don't know why they're not.

These are several of a number of reasons that this bill is extremely problematic. There's no concept of safeguarding wildlife, nor is there any evidence of the precautionary principles to be found, as I've said, and this is not a small matter.

Ontario is a large jurisdiction for wildlife and wildlife habitats are fragile, given that the human population is constantly expanding and that there are now relaxed conditions under Bill 139 for hunting and trapping. If money is to be made by keeping these animals, as I've indicated, there is no law to oversee what life is like for those animals or what effect is being had on the species of having them on display.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we have run out of time. May I ask you to wrap up.

Ms Bisgould: I'll sum up in one sentence -- well, two but one breath.

I'm sorry to have to say that in coming here and speaking on behalf of these organizations it's their recommendation that this bill not proceed, that it not become law and that you do everything within your power to see that that happens.

In saying that to you, I recognize that you're looking at me thinking, "Is she out of her tree?" I'm aware that the likelihood of that actually happening is slim. However, I would be doing a disservice to the organizations on behalf of whom I'm speaking and the animals on behalf of whom they advocate if I didn't call it as I see it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for being here with us today.

ONTARIO WHITE-TAILED DEER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on the Ontario White-Tailed Deer Producers Association. We have Liz Kerkvliet and Ed Bishop. I'd like to welcome you this morning to the general government committee. I want to indicate to you that we may have to interrupt your presentation if there is a vote. I will ask members then to reconvene. Please begin.

Ms Lizeanne Kerkvliet: Good morning. My name is Lizeanne Kerkvliet and I'm a white-tailed deer producer and a director of the Ontario White-Tailed Deer Producers Association. With me today is Mr Ed Bishop, president of our association. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to them this morning.

We, the white-tailed deer producers of Ontario, are opposed to Bill 139, as it will outlaw hunting preserves in Ontario for farm-raised white-tailed deer.

The trophy buck market is the single-most significant market for white-tailed deer. Our farm-raised white-tailed deer are not native animals that have been removed from the wild. These animals have been selectively bred and imported from other provinces.

We are fortunate to live in Ontario, where our Canadian climate is conducive to producing the biggest-bodied and -antlered deer in the world. Our province's northern, natural rugged beauty is an ideal location for the commercial operation of hunting preserves. We have the best components to produce the perfect Canadian hunting experience according to the perception of American and European clients. Therefore, Canadian hunting preserves enjoy a premium price for their hunts. Why then are we not capitalizing on this rapidly expanding and profitable industry?

To examine the success of hunt farms, we can look to existing models in the US. Many states, such as Michigan and Texas, have multimillion-dollar industries based on farm-raised white-tailed deer hunting preserves. The western provinces of Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, have also recognized the potential profits to be made. The Alberta white-tailed deer producers are currently preparing an economic prospectus for consideration by the government. Saskatchewan is presently allowed to hunt farm-raised white-tailed deer, and effective March 1, 1998, Quebec will permit the year-round hunting of farm-raised white-tailed deer. It seems contrary that Ontario would be in favour of eliminating hunting preserves.

Hunting preserves are reputable hunting establishments, primarily located in northern Ontario. These preserves boast beautiful, rugged, tree-covered terrain. We cater to and attract a different clientele than traditional hunters. Our clientele wish to enjoy a hunting experience, have a fair chase and be assured of a chance to shoot a trophy buck. Our clientele wish to hunt mature deer only.

Hunting preserve operators will stock their preserves with carefully selected animals from Ontario producers with a minimum Boone and Crocket score of 140 points. Boone and Crocket, or B and C, is a system for measuring antler size. The larger the antler, the higher the score, the greater the value of the animal.

Our hunters will be accompanied by experienced guides. The deer density in our preserves is often lower than the deer density in the wild. Hunting preserves have been operating successfully in Ontario for the better part of a decade, and they hope to continue to do so and expand in the future.

We are not competing with or encroaching on any of the traditional methods of hunting. Hunters are free to do next year as they have done in the past. However, they may choose the opportunity to hunt a trophy buck on a hunting preserve.

We are, to a certain extent, preserving our native species. As the success of a hunt is often determined by the size of the deer's antlers, these genetics are lost to future generations of Ontario native deer.

The elimination of hunting preserves is a considerable loss to the white-tailed deer producer. If we take the example of a 50-doe breeding herd, approximately 35 bucks per year would be shipped to an Ontario hunting preserve. Ontario hunting preserves pay 50% of the hunting fee to the producer. The average price of a hunt is $10,000. Therefore, 35 bucks at $5,000 nets the producer $175,000 a year.

If Bill 139 is passed as is and the hunt farms are eliminated, Ontario producers have two options to market their trophy bucks. They may choose to send their animals to the venison market. Taking the same scenario, we have 35 bucks at approximately 155 pounds times a price of $3.85, which yields $20,900. If we subtract this revenue from the revenue that is generated from the hunting preserve, we have an added value lost to the producer of $154,000. That's a lot for a single producer.

Our only other option is to ship our deer to the US. However, before these deer are shipped, they must be TB tested within 60 days prior to being shipped. In order to complete the test, a large area on the neck is shaved; this shaved area destroys the trophy cape, making the animal unmarketable for the current hunting year, thus forcing producers to sell immature, unproven trophy bucks to the American market at discount prices. Taking the same scenario, we have 35 bucks at approximately $1,200, yielding the producer $42,000. If we subtract this from the $175,000 the producer could have made if he had been able to sell to the hunt farms, his loss is $133,000. These losses are typical of what a single producer would experience on a 50-doe breeding herd.

Hunting preserves are ideally located in the less-populated areas of northern Ontario. These small communities benefit greatly from the economic spinoffs produced by the hunting preserve. Local labour is used to construct and maintain the hunting preserves. Initial employment consists of the actual construction of the facility, the installation of fences, the lodge and any required outbuildings. Ongoing employment requirements include cooks, housekeepers, guides, lodge and grounds keepers and hunting preserve maintenance.

The hunting preserve purchases its supplies from the community wherein it resides, supporting the local construction yard with the purchase of building supplies. It will purchase its food and dry goods from the local supermarket and shops. Visitors to the hunting preserve will introduce much-welcomed tourist dollars to the area and complement existing tourist establishments. As you can see, the loss of the hunting market has repercussions not only for the producer but for the local community, spinoff industries and provincial and federal tax revenues.

This government has stated repeatedly that small business is the backbone of the Ontario economy, yet here we have an example of an industry with tremendous potential which has given clear indication that it is and will continue to be very viable and successful. Other provinces are already ahead of us. We need this government's support.

All we are asking for is two amendments to the bill:

(1) To amend subsection 1(1) by adding the following between "vehicle" and "wildlife": "'white-tailed deer hunting preserve' means an enclosed area in which farm-raised white-tailed deer are released for hunting purposes."

(2) Amend subsection 41(2) by adding the following after "preserve" in the third line: "or farm-raised white-tailed deer in a white-tailed deer hunting preserve."

The amendments would allow us to continue to produce high-quality trophy animals for the hunting industry.

We feel this bill discriminates against the white-tailed deer producers. Tell me, why are trout farmers allowed to catch fish on fishing preserves? Why are pheasant farmers allowed to hunt on a hunting preserve? Why are exotic deer farmers allowed to hunt their farm-raised deer on hunting preserves? Why do these farmers receive preferential treatment?

We trust that you will take this matter into serious consideration, and we thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and proposed amendments.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Martel, one minute.

Ms Martel: How many hunting preserves are there in the province and can you give us the best explanation you have from MNR as to why they are being eliminated?

Mr Ed Bishop: Operating now, there are three that we know of. We asked MNR, and what they've come up with is that public perception is the major reason for not wanting hunting preserves. What we wonder is why the hunting perception of a white tail is different from that of catching farm-raised fish in a pond or shooting a farm-raised pheasant or hunting any other exotic in a fenced situation.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here today.

Are we going to wait for a second here?

Mr Michael Brown: I would suggest, Madam Chair, the bells are about to ring here.

The Vice-Chair: We are going to be called, so all members are asked to reconvene within five minutes after the vote has been taken.

The committee recessed from 1204 to 1220.

ONTARIO HAWKING CLUB

The Vice-Chair: Ladies and gentleman, can we quickly reconvene and hear the last deputation.

I'd like to call on Martin Geleynse of the Ontario Hawking Club. Welcome. For the purposes of Hansard, would you both introduce yourselves, please.

Mr Martin Geleynse: I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Ontario Hawking Club about a subject that's been very important to me. My name is Martin Geleynse. I was previously a president of the Ontario Hawking Club and am currently a director. With me is Ken Roczniak, also a director of our club.

Falconry has been defined as the sport of taking wild game by means of a trained raptor or bird of prey. This simple definition has never really done it justice for me, however. Falconry is an ancient art that has been practised for over 3,000 years in all parts of the world. As a means of putting food on the table, however, it's very poor.

You might ask why such a lousy way of hunting would have such a long history. I've asked myself that sometimes. Well, no one who has ever seen a hawk or falcon in action could help but be amazed at their speed, their power and the pure intensity of their flight. For a falconer, it is not just seeing but being an active part of these flights, as well as the partnership with a beautiful creature, that has drawn people to this sport throughout the ages. If it were not for this attraction, falconry would have disappeared soon after its first practitioners died of starvation, because if they were planning to eat off their falcon, that's what would happen.

Of all human-wildlife interactions, falconry is completely unique. I just ask you to think about this for a moment: Falconry is taking a wild creature, taming it down, training it and returning it a short time later to hunt its natural quarry, this time with you as its partner. It's part sport, part art and part pure magic.

Now down to business. The Ontario Hawking Club was founded in 1984 to promote raptor conservation and the sport of falconry. It is affiliated with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the North American Falconers' Association.

We have been working with the Ministry of Natural Resources since inception, pretty much. Based on some meetings we had with ministry officials before Bill 139 was introduced, we had some serious concerns. Since introduction, we've had another series of meetings with different officials and these meetings have largely alleviated most of our concerns. There are a few minor issues remaining and we are confident they can be worked out in good faith. In general, we support Bill 139 and believe it should move forward.

There is only one area where this bill differs dramatically from the laws in place in the rest of North America: In 46 states, the four western provinces and two territories, falconers have regulated access to common wild birds of prey.

We believe strongly, as do many others, that wildlife resources should be managed in a sustainable way for the benefit of everyone. We are therefore proposing this amendment to subsection 40(4), that it be amended by adding the phrase -- I won't read the whole section -- that wildlife can be taken into captivity "except as prescribed by the regulations."

This amendment would improve things in a number of ways. The regulations would allow for a tighter and finer degree of control than the simple authorization currently in that section. It would improve consistency across the province and make it easier for people to understand what is allowed and what is not allowed. Finally, it would allow Ontario at long last to align its regulations with those in the rest of North America. Without this amendment, Ontario will be unable to implement the whole package and there will be little of tangible value in Bill 139 for the falconry community. In other words, we'll be doing what we currently do now, but we'll be doing it under regulations. There's no extra. There's no up side.

Please remember we're not asking for anything unique or untested. Falconers in other areas have been allowed to take common wild raptors for many, many years. At present, fully 53 North American jurisdictions allow falconers to take wild birds, and the number continues to increase. In the last 10 years, five more states and two provinces have come on board. Most recently, the province of Manitoba has adopted a complete set of regulations, including everything from special seasons to giving falconers access to those common wild birds.

The effect of this access has been the subject of a multitude of scientific studies. These studies have shown over and over again that it has no impact on the populations. Allow me to highlight just a few.

Falconers take only first-year birds, which have a very high natural mortality, between 50% and 80%. On average, falconers take only one bird from the wild every 3.6 years; 40% are the very common red-tailed hawk and about 50% are actually returned to the wild. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted two complete environmental assessments on falconry. It's summarized very briefly and I have some quotes here:

"Generally, the take of raptors from the wild by falconers and propagators is small, self-limiting and can safely be regarded as inconsequential.... Stringent controls on the use and take of most species is not necessary." That is their conclusion. They went on to say, "The present assessment shows most raptor populations to be increasing, numbers of falconers stable and legal take by falconers is down." This is their statement: "We are led to conclude even more confidently in 1986," when that study was done, "that falconry has a negligible impact on raptor populations."

The population of raptors in Ontario is in the tens of thousands. This is a huge province. In contrast, it is very unlikely that Ontario falconers would require more than 15, at most 20, birds per annum. Obviously, taking such a small number of birds, most of whom would die anyway, would have absolutely no impact.

Based on the experience and some of these studies and assessments that have been conducted in other areas, those areas are actually deregulating falconry and loosening the controls on the use of wild raptors. US law no longer even requires most wild raptors to be banded.

The laws in place elsewhere have allowed for direct interaction between falconers and wild raptors. This has fostered the development of an admittedly small but active and dedicated user group with detailed hands-on knowledge of this resource. This knowledge has been put to use and is of great value in everything from population surveys to critical habitat studies, pesticide analysis and more.

One of the most visible conservation successes of this century has been the re-establishment of the peregrine falcon over much of North America. Falconers were key to this whole effort. Their data was used to identify the initial decline and its causes. They donated their personal birds to breeding projects and developed captive breeding techniques which at the time didn't exist. Falconers ended up running all of the breeding centres used for this program, and the birds were released using a technique known as hacking, which is a falconry technique. I don't wish to detract -- this was an international effort and many people and organizations contributed -- but it simply would not have been possible without falconry. If I had more time I'd read Tom Cade's quote. There's a beautiful quote on that.

These examples only scratch the surface, but they are a powerful testament to the value of having a vibrant user group, one that is allowed to interact directly with the resource they love. In this age of government cutbacks, having groups to partner with like that is increasingly important.

The falconers of Ontario have been waiting a long time for this situation that I've just described to be duplicated here. Including the possibility of access to wild birds in Bill 139 is very important; it is unlikely that we will have another chance for many years. I urge you to consider, can all 53 jurisdictions be wrong?

We're really asking the Legislature to give the MNR at least the ability to align the regulations with the rest of North America, even if these regulations are not developed immediately. We are confident that this whole issue will soon become a non-issue in Ontario, as it is in so many other areas. The possibility will give falconers something to work towards, give them an incentive to make the rest of the regulations brought into force by 139 work. It will also secure the conservation benefits that flow from a partnership with an active and dedicated falconry user group. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Chudleigh, one minute.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much for your presentation. I particularly appreciate your definition. It's quite lovely.

Taking birds from the wild, of course, would involve some forms of controversy. Even though it's a small number of birds, what kinds of controls or regulations would you see to control that? Who would be allowed to do that? How would it be regulated?

Mr Geleynse: The proposals that we have been discussing with ministry officials involve an apprenticeship program and a limit on the number of birds that could be in possession by falconers to three, although the majority of falconers only ever have one. We've been discussing an apprenticeship requirement for 18 or 15 months. That's very common in the rest of North America. During that apprenticeship requirement, only one bird in possession; it has to be sponsored by a licensed falconer. The only birds that could be taken are subadult birds, first-year birds, and those are the birds that have the high mortality. It also happens that those are the best birds to take for falconry. Those are the most malleable, the ones that adjust most easily, so there's really no pressure to touch the other ones anyway.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here today. The committee stands recessed until 3:30. Just to remind members that the clerk is making every effort to have the amendments at 2:30. You can pick them up in room 1405. They will be delivered, however, as soon as possible after that.

The committee recessed from 1231 to 1532.

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to a motion with unanimous consent:

"Mr Harnick moved that Bill 139, An Act to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife through the revision of the Game and Fish Act, be considered by the standing committee on general government for one day only, at its regularly scheduled meeting time, on Thursday, December 11, 1997, and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on that day."

I'd like to begin. We're going to go until there are five minutes left on the clock. In our clause-by-clause analysis, are there any comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which section?

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the English version of subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"'Aquaculture' means the breeding or husbandry of fish, and the verb 'culture' has, with respect to fish, a corresponding meaning; ('pisciculture')."

This change introduces the term "aquaculture" into the bill and reflects feedback that we've received from the Ontario Aquaculture Association concerning the bill. This proposed change is consistent with the overall policy directive of the act concerning the culture of fish.

Mr Michael Brown: We're pleased to support this change.

Ms Martel: Can I ask a question? If we accept this, does it mean the ministry would then not be willing to consider a definition for "farmed fish"? Would this be a replacement for a particular definition for farmed fish?

Mr Chudleigh: Yes.

Ms Martel: Then I won't support it, because I'll move a definition for farmed fish when we get to it.

Mr Michael Brown: We actually have an amendment doing that also.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? I'll call for the vote then. All those in favour? Against? It's carried.

Further amendments?

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the definition of "culture" in the English version of subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out.

This change is associated with the preceding motion and is reflective of the use of the term "aquaculture" in the bill.

The Vice-Chair: Questions, comments? All in favour? Against? Carried.

The next amendment?

Mr Michael Brown: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"'farmed fish' means fish raised under the authority of a fish farm licence."

If I might speak to it, this was put forward by the Ontario Aquaculture Association. I think it provides a more suitable definition of what actually is going on and would differentiate a farmed fish from a wild fish.

Mr Chudleigh: We have added a proposed definition for "aquaculture" to help provide for the recognition of the industry. There are people engaged in aquaculture who are not fish farmers, and MNR would lose the ability to regulate these people with the Ontario Aquaculture Association's proposed definition or the member's proposed definition. I would be opposed to the motion.

Ms Martel: If I can add to this, part of the reason the aquaculture association has been so adamant about having recognition of a specific title of "farmed fish" is because they believe they should be monitored in the province as an agricultural activity. Under Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing guidelines now they are considered an agricultural activity. Under OMAFRA they are also considered an agricultural activity, and OMAFRA provides $1 million a year to this industry to help it grow.

What we have been trying to do and what the association has been trying to do with MNR through the whole piece is get that recognition; hence our moving the definition to more clearly define them as an agricultural activity, as they are under two ministries. That's where the discrepancy is coming in.

Mr Michael Brown: I fail to see why this is a problem. Why can we not include both? I don't see it as an either/or situation.

Mr Chudleigh: We would lose control over the aquarium trade, for instance, and those kinds of things, so it becomes difficult.

Ms Martel: Under this bill, there is not a licence required for the aquarium trade in any event. As I understand it, that trade is not regulated by licence.

Mr Chudleigh: Not currently, but it might be at some point in the future.

Ms Martel: You're saying you're going to lose control over some other trade, but that trade right now is not regulated under the current Game and Fish Act and we're also not proposing to regulate it here. You're not losing anything that's already not lost, if I can put it that way.

Mr Chudleigh: I understand what you're saying, but we think it restricts it.

The Vice-Chair: Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's defeated.

The next amendment is on page 4.

Ms Martel: Madam Chair, I withdraw it. It would now be out of order, as it's a similar definition.

The Vice-Chair: The next amendment is 4.1.

1540

Ms Martel: I move that the definition of "farmer" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"'farmer' means a person who carries on an agricultural operation as defined by the Farm Practices Protection Act."

The definition I propose is the one that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture talked to us about this morning. It is the one that has come from the Farm Practices Protection Act, currently at second reading before our assembly. It is to try and provide for a definition that the folks involved in the industry believe is more modern and more appropriate.

Mr Chudleigh: We would be opposed to the motion. Other proposed definitions of farmers would extend the types of farming operations to which exemptions apply. Those exemptions would reflect the provision of habitat by more traditional farmers, but which is not provided by mushroom farmers or fish farmers etc. The definition pulls in a broader type of farming, broader than the definition that we want to pursue.

Mr Michael Brown: Could you give us some examples so that I could maybe understand that?

Mr Chudleigh: They have some special exemptions under the bill.

Mr Michael Brown: Who does?

Mr Chudleigh: The fish farmers, or farmers in specific. They have exemptions to the requirement of a licence for the control of animals on their farms, things like that.

Mr Michael Brown: Why would some farmers need that and other farmers not need that?

Mr Chudleigh: It extends the definition of "farmer" and therefore reduces the control of animals in the environment, reduces our ability to manage wildlife in the environment. For that reason, it's not something we're willing to pursue.

Ms Martel: I'd ask the parliamentary assistant if he can give me some idea of what control the ministry has over farmers and farm land now, because I didn't think you had any.

Mr Chudleigh: It's not necessarily the control we have over them; it's how they're recognized in the act, particularly in the control of nuisance or pests that are bothering their livestock etc, and they're specifically exempted in this act.

Mr Klees: If staff have the ability to do so, I wonder if staff could give us a couple of specific examples relating to this.

Mr John Brisbane: My name is John Brisbane. Historically, the Game and Fish Act, and the proposed new bill, provide certain privileges to people who meet the definition of "farmer" in the bill. Two examples of those: Farmers are allowed to recreationally hunt on their own property; similarly, they have the ability to trap on their own property. Those sorts of privileges have been historically provided to traditional farmers, who have usually have a large land base, primarily because that land base provides habitat for wildlife for the province of Ontario. As well, those farmers lose some crops, to a degree, through predation by animals in those situations.

To change and significantly broaden that definition so that it embraces things like aquaculturists, mushroom farmers, beekeepers and those sorts of things, which in fact is the breadth of the change that's accommodated by the Farm Practices Act, would be providing those privileges that were originally geared toward people who have large land bases beyond that. Frankly, mushroom farming can happen in the basement of Queen's Park.

Mr Klees: I think it does, doesn't it?

Mr Brisbane: I don't know.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm absolutely sure.

Mr Klees: So you are intending to restrict the definition for the purposes of aquaculture. I understand the reasoning.

Mr Michael Brown: I still find it troublesome, in that I don't know what problem you're solving, and you create more confusion by having different definitions and different acts for the same activity. I really don't know to think that a mushroom farmer is likely to be out shooting pests on his land, so what's the problem?

Mr Chudleigh: It's simply the further proliferation of that definition.

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? It's defeated.

I'd like to go directly to the next one. Is there someone who would like to present this amendment?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Do we need someone to stand in?

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): If this motion is to be adopted by the committee, yes, a member of this committee must move that motion, or we can just pass by and keep going.

Mr Klees: Why not just keep going?

Mr Michael Brown: I have a similar one.

The Vice-Chair: Shall this amendment carry?

Mr Gilchrist: No, it hasn't been presented yet.

The Vice-Chair: Oh, sorry. No one has moved it.

I would like to recess at this point. I can hear the bells in the House. We'll come back within five minutes after the vote.

The committee recessed from 1548 to 1558.

Mr Michael Brown: Madam Chair, the member for Elgin is now here. Would it be all right if I moved this amendment on his behalf?

The Vice-Chair: We'd have to have unanimous consent to go back, because we've already passed it. Is there unanimous consent? There is.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that section 1(1) be amended by adding the following between "vehicle" and "wildlife":

"'white-tailed deer hunting preserve' means an enclosed area in which farm-raised white-tailed deer are released for hunting purposes;"

Also, that subsection 41(2) be amended by adding the following after "preserve" in the third line:

"or farm-raised white-tailed deer in a white-tailed deer hunting preserve."

Mr Gilchrist: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I believe the member has just read two different amendments.

The Vice-Chair: I was going to raise that, but thank you. Any discussion?

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Madam Chair, I assume we're talking about subsection 1(1) at this point.

The Vice-Chair: Yes.

Mr North: Basically, this is just an explanatory note explaining what "white-tailed deer hunting preserve" is. The reason for the inclusion is that at this point in time there are in this province white-tailed deer hunting preserves and Bill 139 would exclude the possibility of white-tailed deer hunting preserves in the future. First of all, this is just to define what a white-tailed deer hunting preserve is, and then the next amendment deals with the text or context of what I'm talking about.

Mr Michael Brown: Madam Chair, we have a similar motion, which I'm sure you will rule out of order when we get there. This is in response to the Ontario White-Tailed Deer Producers Association's brief we heard this morning. They are very fearful that their businesses will be jeopardized, in fact put out of business. I understand there is a sizeable investment within these particular preserves, that it's a new and growing business in Ontario, that that there is a demand for this business. I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr Chudleigh: I'm afraid we can't support this amendment. It facilitates a move to legalize game ranching and the hunting of white-tailed deer in captivity, and this is a policy or a direction that our government doesn't want to go in.

Mr North: To speak to Mr Chudleigh's comments, at present it's my understanding that there are white-tailed deer hunting preserves in the province. As a matter of fact, there's one in Commanda, which is in the finance minister's own riding. This is something that is presently happening in this province. It's supported by tourism organizations and by various other organizations. It is a small business unto itself. It is participated in by a number of the white-tailed deer farmers at this time. They have made a substantial investment in it, and it is the bulk of their equity in what they're doing. They made the investment primarily for that reason. At minimum they would ask that the present preserves be grandfathered, and their hope would be that there would be some understanding from the government that it was actually encouraging deer farming in this province and is at present.

Mr Chudleigh raises a point with regard to this being native wildlife or a wildlife species native to this particular province. It is very similar to the situation with regard to bobwhite quail or ring-necked pheasants, which are native species to this province or have been identified now as native species to this province. So it is not uncharacteristic of this province to support that sort of thing. For the parliamentary assistant to suggest that it's not something this province can support -- I would say we have supported for a number of years, under all forms of government, that very thing.

Mr Chudleigh: The game farm that you referred to is a 100-acre fenced area. It was started after first reading of this bill. There is an ability under regulation to recognize this type of game farm in the future, but at this point in time the government has no intention of moving in that direction.

Mr Michael Brown: I am surprised. I understood that much of this was supported by OMAFRA and a minister of the crown, that the agricultural community could go forward and this was a means to go forward.

Mr Chudleigh: Raising deer for the purposes of meat or venison is encouraged by OMAFRA and by the Ministry of Natural Resources; however, hunting game in captivity is not. Hunting white-tailed deer in captivity is not something we want to pursue.

Ms Martel: I would just ask the parliamentary assistant if he can explain what would appear to me to be a contradiction, because we permit pheasant farmers to hunt on a hunting preserve, which I assume would be in captivity. The association also told us this morning that exotic deer farmers are allowed to hunt their farm-raised deer on hunting preserves. We also had the example of trout farmers being allowed to do that on their private property, on their fish farms. I see this as quite a large contradiction in terms of what the ministry is allowing for other game on people's properties, which is already recognized.

You need to explain better to me why the ministry is prepared to allow hunting of game in some circumstances on people's private property and preserves but not in this case.

Mr Chudleigh: It's a situation that perhaps hasn't been looked at in enough detail at this point in time. The size of the facility might have a great deal to do with it. If you consider the hunting of an animal within a fenced area that has no means of escape -- a bird may have a chance to fly, whereas the white-tailed deer or any four-legged animal may not. It's just something we're not ready to proceed with at this time.

Mr North: I apologize for being argumentative, but it seems to me that there has to be some understanding of a commitment that's perceived to have been made by the province and a commitment that has been made by these agricultural people. They have literally hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in this particular form of agriculture. It is a legal form of agriculture in the province today. It is a form of agriculture that has been encouraged by the ministry.

I would beg to differ with regard to an understanding of this type of agriculture, because people who are supportive or who would encourage this form of agriculture who have done any research whatsoever -- and I assume that the Ministry of Agriculture in this province, having been parliamentary assistant myself at one point, would have done their research and done their homework. They would understand that in many other provinces in this country this form of agriculture and this form of gaming pursuit is legal and is supported by the governments themselves.

It is very advantageous for the province in terms of tourism, economics, small business, diversification, and most especially in our area, southwestern Ontario, in terms of diversification in agriculture because of the problems we will have or have had in the past with regard to tobacco. It is an excellent opportunity to diversify, an excellent opportunity to make investment in diversification in agriculture and an excellent opportunity for agriculturists to find a diversified product that there is an interest in. From an economic standpoint, it is an excellent opportunity for people in the agricultural sector. The parliamentary assistant comes from the agricultural sector and he understands it very well.

The opportunity for people to visit this province, to hunt game -- I would argue with the member that in terms of the hunting or pursuit of this game, we are not talking about 1,000 animals on 100 acres; we are talking about a small number of animals and we are talking about a select opportunity that exists.

In terms of your argument that it's all right for birds that fly because they have an opportunity but it's not all right for four-legged animals, the last time I looked, red deer and fallow deer had four legs the same as white-tailed deer. Wild boar have four legs. If you could explain to me specifically what it is about white-tailed deer that is different from red or fallow deer and why it is that this ministry is specifically not interested in supporting the hunting of white-tailed deer behind fences, I would be very appreciative of that.

Mr Chudleigh: They're not a native species.

Mr North: Ring-necked pheasant and bobwhite quail are not native species?

Mr Chudleigh: No, your deer question regarding the different species of deer: They are not native species and they don't present the same dangers. They are not covered specifically in this act; however, through regulation, they could be controlled in this act or the operations be expanded.

Mr North: I would be interested to know, then, what controls MNR will have over red deer and fallow deer, since they're not being included as farmed animals. In terms of risk -- I assume you're suggesting problems with disease or something of that nature -- I would be interested to know how it is that you would be more concerned about a native species and disease than you would be about red deer or fallow deer with regard to disease, on the basis that you and I both know the problems on the Bruce some time ago, at least suggested problems that occurred on the Bruce some time ago, and the concern that was expressed by MNR with regard to red deer or fallow deer being put in a compound or being released into the wild.

I'm not asking for a lot here. I'm asking for consideration and a small change in the bill to accommodate a small sector of people who have committed all their agricultural economics to this one particular pursuit.

1610

Mr Chudleigh: I've indicated that the bill would permit this type of thing by regulation. I think that's about as far as I can go today.

Mr North: Can you explain it to me so I understand what you mean by how it permits it by regulations?

Mr Chudleigh: There are regulations within the bill that would permit this type of activity.

Mr North: Farming or hunting?

Mr Chudleigh: Farming, not hunting.

Mr North: That's not what we're asking for with regard to the amendment.

Mr Chudleigh: I understand that.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

We'll move on to the next one, an NDP motion.

Ms Martel: Madam Chair, there's a bit of a change, if I might. I know people have it in front of them, but as a result of this morning's discussion, I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(b.1) includes any product," -- and here is the change I propose -- "derivative or other thing made from the animal, invertebrate or fish."

The rationale for the move is to clarify that in many cases whole animals or parts of animals are relatively easy to distinguish, especially for the purpose of making sure that we're not trading bear parts, bear galls etc. But we need to recognize that parts of animals are not so easily distinguishable, for example, gall bladder could end up in the form of a pill or other thing that still shouldn't be traded or sold. It's to recognize that we need to deal with not only parts of or whole animals, but their derivatives as well. It's to try to get a clarification around that.

Mr Chudleigh: I understand what you're proposing. However, from a policy perspective we want to stay with "parts." If we get involved in products, it becomes too broad. You get involved in perhaps opening cans in a small grocery store to try and determine where a product might have come from. You get derivatives out of parts, so if you can ban parts, you can control the products or the derivatives of those parts.

Ms Martel: Even for MNR staff some of that wouldn't be easily distinguishable, so you might cut out part of an illegal trade but not all of it if you're focusing only on parts or whole pieces of animals versus trying to get at some of the other uses that people would make of them, which obviously the ministry is trying to ban, for example, a traffic in gall bladders.

Mr Chudleigh: If we were dealing specifically with gall bladders you might have a more sustainable argument, but as you're dealing with a broad range of things, some of which are cultural in nature, it may cause some difficulties. We think the focus on parts will give us the control we need when dealing with the products and the derivatives of those products.

Mr Michael Brown: Well, I'm thoroughly confused. It seems to me that this is a good idea. The fact that you may not be able to identify them in every case does not negate the case for doing it. If we're trying to stop the traffic in animal parts, you have to look one step down the road. Just because you may have difficulty and some might get by you doesn't mean you shouldn't have something in the act that permits you, if you do happen to identify it, to stop it.

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion? Is there a clarification that you wish?

Mr Chudleigh: Could we work with the wording and come back to this one? Can we stand it down?

Ms Martel: Then you'd stand down the next one as well, because it does the same thing in a different section. I'd stand both down.

The Vice-Chair: We have to have unanimous consent to stand them down. Do we have that? Agreed. That will mean we'll leave section 1, obviously.

We have sections 2 to 5. Shall sections 2 to 5 carry? Carried.

We're looking at your page 8, section 6.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "Despite subsection (1)" in the first line and substituting "Despite subsection (1)'s requirement for a licence."

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion? Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

The next one is on page 9.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "Despite subsection (1)" in the first line and substituting "Despite subsection (1)'s requirement for a licence."

This again is a technical clarification allowing farmers to hunt or trap specific animals on their land without being required to obtain a licence.

Ms Martel: In both amendments you're just changing the wording, not the intent -- fixing it up?

Mr Chudleigh: Absolutely.

The Vice-Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 7 to 10 carry? Carried.

Shall section 11 carry? Carried.

Mr Michael Brown: Wait a minute. Isn't there an amendment to section 11?

The Vice-Chair: Nobody moved it.

Mr Michael Brown: Oh, so it's not being moved.

Mr Gilchrist: It's not a government motion. It's the PC member's.

The Vice-Chair: We're looking at section 12. Shall section 12 carry? Carried.

We're looking at a government motion on page 11.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that clause 13(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "or any other hunting, trapping or fishing device" in the second and third lines and substituting "or any other thing used for hunting, trapping or fishing."

Section 13 makes it an offence for a person to interfere with lawful hunting, trapping and fishing. This approach is consistent with the direction adopted by virtually every other jurisdiction in North America. The intent of section 13 is to minimize conflicts in the field between hunters, trappers, fishers and others. It allows officers to intervene without having to lay a criminal charge. The suggested change represents an improvement over the current wording in section 13, in that it more clearly includes the range of things used by hunters, trappers and fishers, such as hunting blinds etc, and their activities. The proposed change is supported by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board.

1620

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment.

Ms Martel: I move that subsection 13(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Obstruction of hunting, trapping and fishing

"(1) A person shall not interfere with lawful hunting, trapping or fishing.

"Exception

"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations."

The rationale, as one of the presenters noted, is that this section -- and I don't have a problem with it -- sets out what people should not be doing, that they should not be engaged in interfering in other legal activities. However, I think there are some circumstances where some interference in that would be necessary, but a person, by the very fact of interfering, would then put themselves clearly in conflict with the act.

I've put down a subsection that deals with some circumstances that would be prescribed in the regulations, where people -- in the example that was used this morning, someone whose dog is caught in a trap could get them out of that trap without appearing to be circumventing or interfering with the law. It's to allow for those possibilities to be developed in the regulations.

Mr Chudleigh: This is a very broad definition you're bringing in. When this section of the act was drafted, we had to seek constitutional law advice on this particular one because of the sensitivity of dealing with individual rights around this issue. I noted the presentation we had this morning, which made a very good point. The section is drafted very carefully regarding constitutional law, and to make this amendment probably would contravene those acts. I'm not an expert in that area, but I'm told that could very easily be the case.

We did have a discussion about how that can be controlled. We believe something can be done in regulation to perhaps control some of the areas.

Ms Martel: In fact, that was what I was asking for: for some of those circumstances to be developed in the regulations so that there would be an exception applied to people who find themselves in that circumstance. Right now, as the section appears, under 13(1)(a), (b) and (c), there is no exemption for anyone under any circumstance who finds themselves contravening the law, but for a purpose that is not unlawful. If they do any of these things, if they interfere, they contravene the act.

Mr Chudleigh: I would refer you to section 100, which reads:

"100. A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this act if the person establishes that,

"(a) the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence; or

"(b) the person honestly and reasonably believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would render the person's conduct innocent."

It's a due diligence clause. Hopefully, some common sense would be applied in the field in those situations. I see Mr Brown shaking his head. I guess referring around constitutional law makes it very difficult.

The Vice-Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Defeated.

Shall section 13, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 14 to 23 carry? Carried.

We're looking at the motion on page 13. Is anyone prepared to move that? No. Okay, page 14.

Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me, Chair, is the proper question not, "Are there any amendments to section 24?" I think that would expedite the process. Only those people who have shown up can make amendments. I think it would move a little faster.

The Vice-Chair: We're just asking the question here. Looking at the next one, subsection 24(2), is there anyone to present that? All right, we'll move on to page 15.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 24(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exceptions

"(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations."

This change includes subsections (2) and (3). Both (2) and (3) have exceptions made by regulation, needed to address some situations where people legitimately hunt from canoes.

Mr Gilchrist: There's one thing I'd like to put on the record. I believe this amendment reflects the concerns expressed by Mr Ouellette and outlined in some of his other proposed amendments.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 24, as amended, carry? Carried.

We're looking at page 16.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 25(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "or elk" in the third line and substituting "elk or black bear."

The Vice-Chair: Discussion?

Mr Chudleigh: It's yours.

Ms Martel: No, we have the same one.

Mr Chudleigh: We could pass yours just for fun.

Ms Martel: Yes, we could.

The Vice-Chair: I would just point out to you that the NDP motion says "caribou or elk."

Ms Martel: "Caribou" is already in there, actually, so it was just to phrase it. It's not a change.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Ms Martel: Then mine will be out of order. I withdraw it, if that's easier.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

We're looking at page 17.1. This will be at the back of your package. Shelley, I think this is the same.

Ms Martel: Withdrawn.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

Shall section 25, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 26 to 30 carry? Carried.

We're looking at page 18.

Ms Martel: I move that subsection 31(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "or is about to damage" in the second and third lines.

The rationale for that is to make it clear that if on private property an individual is going to destroy an animal, it be very clear that that animal is causing destruction. It's to remove any kind of arbitrary ability to judge that one way or the other; that damage has to occur for the person to take that step to actually destroy the animal.

Mr Klees: In other words, the damage has to have already taken place. Is that your intent?

1630

Ms Martel: My concern is that an animal -- let's use a bear, for example -- at someone's cottage will come because there is food out, so the bear is starting to wander through the property. The individual might assume there's going to be some damage to the property and either shoot the bear or wound the bear. Wounding is what I'm more concerned about; then he causes an even greater threat either to that property owner or to adjacent homeowners or cottage owners. What I'm trying to get at is that there is obviously occurring some form of threat or damage to that property owner or property.

Mr Chudleigh: Basically, the damage has to occur before the animal can be said to be a nuisance.

Ms Martel: There are two that go together. If I can speak to both at the same time, maybe it would make it clear. In other jurisdictions, for example, in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, certain measures have to be followed by the property owner before an animal can be destroyed. You have to talk to a conservation officer, for example, to describe what kind of changes you've tried to make in order to get that animal away from your property. If everything has been done and that animal is still causing damage, the CO comes to dispatch or destroy it.

What I'm trying to get at is for an individual to take (a) all reasonable precautions or (b) all reasonable measures to try to deal with that without having their first move be to destroy the animal.

Mr Chudleigh: It makes the protection of property far more difficult. I think farmers would be opposed to this. We do go down this road a way when we deal with deer, in that they fall under special circumstances. It would also be very difficult to enforce in many instances. I can't support this motion.

Mr Michael Brown: I cannot support it either. In the real world, at least where I live, there could be a threat that is about to occur and you have to do something and it has to be done now. We would end up putting some people in the position of contravening an act when any reasonable person would have taken the same step. I have the concerns Ms Martel does, but I'm concerned that this wording would cause more problems than it would solve. In our area calls to a conservation officer occur on a regular basis, but conservation officers are not necessarily available all the time. In the real world, with your amendment, Shelley, there would be a lot of good people committing illegal acts.

The Vice-Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We'll move on to 19.

Ms Martel: I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Restriction

"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply unless the person has taken all reasonable measures to discourage wildlife from damaging the person's property."

Again it goes back to my concern. As in some other jurisdictions, where it is clearly laid out what measures you have to take, I'm suggesting that we incorporate a similar set of measures in the province to make sure that some action is taken before you destroy an animal, to mitigate the reason you're going to end up having to destroy that animal.

Mr Chudleigh: By practice, this is what we would encourage people to do. If people phone in, we would encourage them in this direction. It would be very hard to ensure that it does occur. It would be very expensive. It's a huge workload. Other than encouraging it through policy and application, I can't support the motion as is.

The Vice-Chair: All those in favour? All those opposed? Amendment defeated.

We'll move on to a Liberal motion.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that clause 31(3)(b) of the act be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) a white-tailed deer or wild turkey, unless the person harasses or kills the deer or turkey in accordance with the authorization of the minister; or"

We are reacting to suggestions by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. All we're doing here is adding "wild turkey" to that definition. Knowing that the reintroduction of wild turkeys into this province has been a huge success, it only makes sense to afford the same kind of protection to them.

Mr Chudleigh: I would point out that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has opposed an amendment such as this. They could be added to the exemptions by regulation, such as the white-tailed deer are. You mentioned the huge success of the wild turkey reintroduction. In some areas of Ontario, it has been huger than in others. In some conditions, wild turkeys are becoming a significant problem.

Mr Michael Brown: The same goes for white-tailed deer.

Mr Chudleigh: It's the same situation.

The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed? Amendment defeated.

The next one, on page 21, is an NDP motion.

Ms Martel: I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Endangered species

"(3.1) Clause (1)(b) does not apply to a species prescribed by the regulations made under the Endangered Species Act."

Mr Chudleigh: This protection already exists under section 2. If there is a conflict, the Endangered Species Act will apply.

Ms Martel: You're saying it's redundant in this section?

Mr Chudleigh: I'm saying it already exists.

Ms Martel: Then I'll withdraw it.

The Vice-Chair: Moving on to page 22, Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: I will withdraw this one as well.

The Vice-Chair: Shall section 31, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 32 to 35 carry? Carried.

We're on page 23, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that section 36 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exceptions

"(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations."

Section 36 is intended to prevent the wastage and spoilage of wild fish and game. The proposed change would provide flexibility for exemptions from the prohibition concerning the fish spoilage section. We're probably familiar with this. This proposed change would accommodate the concerns of the Ontario Aquaculture Association. It may be necessary to kill fish and allow them to spoil in order to prevent or control the spread of disease. That's why this is being put in.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour? Carried.

The next one, page 29.

Ms Martel: Since the government has just responded to my concern, I will withdraw.

Can I just ask one question? They also had a concern about labelling of containers in one other section. Are you going to address those in this bill or under regulations?

Mr Brisbane: The bill provides us the ability to deal with it by regulation, and we've assured the industry we intend to deal with it by regulation.

Ms Martel: Thank you for getting that on the record.

1640

The Vice-Chair: Shall section 36, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 37 to 39 carry? Carried.

We're looking at a Liberal motion, page 25.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that section 40 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exceptions

"(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations."

We're responding to the Ontario Hawking Club's presentation earlier today, just to allow a little more latitude here.

Ms Martel: If I can add to it, it will allow falconers to take wild birds. The PA was good enough to ask the members of the association what kind of conditions could be put on that, and they made it very clear that in discussions with the ministry they've been looking at an apprenticeship program for 15 to 18 months, where only one bird would be dealt with as a sponsorship; a limit on the possession of birds, three per falconer; and only taking first-year birds. I think the ministry's concern about the conditions you apply to make sure that they are not taking a number of wild birds or mature birds can be addressed in the regulation, and that's what this would allow to have happen.

Mr Michael Brown: I might just add that this would be similar to provisions found in 53 North American jurisdictions.

Mr Chudleigh: We've had a lot of conversations about this regulation. The sensitivity of this particular stock, these particular species of birds, having it ensconced in an act as opposed to in regulation, would make it far less flexible. We would like to handle it in regulations so that if the stock of birds became vulnerable for any reason in the future, we could amend or change those, given the situation at that time.

Mr Michael Brown: Unless we change it, under what the minister can do in subsection 62(6), you would already have that kind of --

Mr Chudleigh: It's already a very large section and one which has received some attention from the proponents today already.

Ms Martel: Can I be clear? Can I ask the ministry staff something? My understanding is that if you don't put this in, you don't even allow for that discussion to happen.

Mr Brisbane: We've had a number of very positive discussions with the Ontario Hawking Club over the last several months, as a recent letter they sent to the minister would attest to. The way section 40 and the section being discussed work, we envision an authorization regime under which the minister would be able to accommodate things by authorizing somebody to do that and by putting conditions on that authorization. We think we can accomplish the same thing with that approach as opposed to a regulatory scheme associated with it.

The topic of allowing young birds to be taken has been the subject of a great deal of controversy over 15 years at least, and there have been a number of reviews of it. We believe we can accommodate what's being asked under the bill the way it is now and the way it's structured today.

Ms Martel: And you're going to do that specifically under subsection 62(6)?

Mr Brisbane: No, I didn't say that.

Ms Martel: I'd like to know where it appears in the new act.

Mr Brisbane: Subsection 40(4): "A person shall not hunt or trap game wildlife or specially protected wildlife for the purpose of keeping it in captivity unless the person has the authorization of the minister."

The minister can then authorize someone to take a young bird for that purpose, if he deems it to be appropriate, and he can put conditions on that. The same mechanism can be accommodated in two ways. One is under subsection (4), and that's how it's proposed to be accommodated, the way the bill is structured now. The suggestion from the hawking community is, "Don't do it that way; do it through a regulatory approach." We're saying we think we can accommodate it appropriately this way.

Ms Martel: But it would be your intention to accommodate them and to resolve this issue?

Mr Chudleigh: In essence.

Mr Brisbane: If I can add to that, our ability to adjust things on an individual basis is more thorough, with an authorization approval versus a regulation.

Ms Martel: Sorry to prolong this, but surely there can't be that many different conditions that could be foreseen to have a different authorization for each different case. It's not a big group of people. You're talking about 50, maybe, in the province taking perhaps 20 birds a year.

Mr Brisbane: There are about 120 falconers in the province; approximately 50 to 60 belong to the Ontario Hawking Club. We continue to believe that authorizations allowing people to take young wild birds are -- not everyone agrees with that, and we think the authorization for those sort of things have to be carefully worked through on an individual basis, depending on the circumstances, and where the taking is to take place and that sort of thing. It will be much more difficult to do that in a regulatory regime because it won't allow the flexibility to deal with things on an individual circumstance. The falconry community uses a different variety of birds in Ontario. It's a complex situation. We're committed to working with them to try and accommodate it, but we think we need the flexibility to do it through authorization as opposed to the regulatory regime.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm a little amazed that we in Ontario would believe that we can do this better than 53 other jurisdictions in North America.

Mr Chudleigh: It wouldn't be the only thing that we do better than 53 other jurisdictions in North America.

Mr Michael Brown: That may be so, but it seems to me that in terms of regulations there is ample evidence of what exists across other jurisdictions, and if we could more or less standardize with those other jurisdictions, it would come to a happy conclusion. It would probably take a lot of bureaucratic time trying to make every decision on every application. It seems to me not a terribly good use of taxpayers' money.

Mr Chudleigh: The sensitivity of this particular issue is such that we want this kind of control. I can't support the motion.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed? Motion defeated.

The next one I'll rule out of order since it is identical.

I'll ask then, does section 40 carry? Carried.

Do sections 41 to 46 -- I'm sorry, we have to back up here a moment. We have a late motion that came in; it came afterwards, a Liberal motion, section 41. It was handed out when you came in.

1650

Mr Michael Brown: I think the discussion -- heck, I'll move it.

Ms Martel: Move it anyway.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that section 41 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Farm-raised white-tailed deer

"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to the hunting of farm-raised white-tailed deer in an enclosed area where farm-raised white-tailed deer are released for hunting purposes."

Mr Chudleigh: I think we've spoken to this amendment previously and we can't support it this time.

The Vice-Chair: Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

We had one filed, but no one here to move it, on section 41 as well, so shall section 41 carry? Carried.

Shall sections 42 to 46 carry? Carried.

We're looking at page 27, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the English version of subsection 47(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"Aquaculture

"(1) a person shall not engage in aquaculture unless the fish that are cultured,"

This change is associated with the proposed use of the term "aquaculture" in the bill. This proposed change is consistent with the overall policy directive of the act concerning the culture of fish. It's basically one of clarification.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 47, as amended, carry? Carried.

Looking at page 28, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 48(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "Despite subsection (1)" in the first line and substituting "Despite subsection (1)'s requirement for a licence."

Basically it permits a licensed trapper to sell the carcass or pelt of a furbearing mammal trapped under licence without requiring a separate licence to sell. The motion clarifies what happens in accordance to everyday activities.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 48, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 49 to 53 carry? Carried.

We're looking at page 29, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that clause 54(3)(b) of the bill be amended by adding "unless otherwise directed by the minister," at the beginning.

This clause addresses wildlife or an invertebrate that has been transported into Ontario or that has been propagated from stock that was transported into Ontario. The section requires the capture or killing as soon as practicable of such specimens if they escape or are released without authorization. The proposed change is consistent with the approach taken in section 46 of the bill concerning the killing or recapturing of escaped farm animals, especially protected wildlife or game wildlife.

When we bring material in from other areas it puts wildlife at risk and it may spread disease or it may spread genetic traits which are undesirable in the Ontario herd or flock.

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 54, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 55 to 60 carry? Carried.

Looking at page 30, Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: I move that subsection 61(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "in accordance with this act and the regulations."

The rationale for several amendments I will move in this section is that I am very concerned about the large amount of discretion that is vested in the minister under this section, particularly in a section that follows, 62(6), but there is a reference back, which is why I am making the change now.

I don't believe there is a need for the kind of discretion that is permissible under this bill. In fact I believe that most people out there, when it comes to protection of our resources, be they fish and wildlife, forestry or aggregate, want to be very clear that the government continues to assume control for that and accountability.

The second dilemma I have is that under a number of sections in the act the minister authorizes someone else to do things on his behalf. In this case it's to issue licences. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that if that authority -- the issuing of licences -- is delegated, it is at least going to be done within the meaning of both the act and regulations so that whoever is dealing with authorizations on the minister's behalf is not going to be working outside both the act and the regulations.

Mr Chudleigh: This is a legal issue, and if I might, I'd ask counsel to make comments.

Miss Leith Hunter: Ms Martel, this section only talks about the issuance of licences. It doesn't talk about the imposition of conditions. All this section does is permit the minister to get somebody to issue licences for him, so Canadian Tire can issue fishing licences or hunting licences.

Section 62 is the section that talks about conditions, and that's the section that governs conditions that go on the licences, and that power has not been delegated outside the ministry. Subsection (2) says, "The minister may impose written conditions on a licence," so the condition-making power is not leaving the ministry. All that is going out in subsection (1) is the issuance, the power to get other people to issue on our behalf. Any complicated conditions would still be done by the minister or by regulation. Those issuers would not be imposing any condition on those licences.

Ms Martel: So it will all be set. The authorization is strictly for --

Mr Chudleigh: The issuing of licences.

Ms Martel: Let me ask with respect to trappers or OFAH, for example. As I understand it, there are discussions happening internally within the ministry with respect to trappers dealing with licences. What I want to know is, is that what that section refers to and would the same condition apply? That is, the ministry will set all the conditions and the only thing the trapping association will be permitted to do is to actually issue them, not with any terms and conditions attached. They won't have the final say on those licences.

Miss Hunter: Conditions can only come from the minister or from somebody within the ministry to whom that power has been delegated, so that's ministry staff. The fur managers' association will not be imposing conditions.

Ms Martel: Will the delegation of any this occur outside the ministry staff?

Mr Chudleigh: No.

Miss Hunter: The condition-making authority? There is no power in this act to have somebody else impose conditions. They can be done by the minister or by regulation.

Mr Chudleigh: They can be delegated within the ministry but they cannot be delegated outside the ministry.

Ms Martel: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion?

Ms Martel: Madam Chair, if that's the case, I will withdraw that.

Mr Chudleigh: That's 61(1) that's going?

Ms Martel: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Shall 61 carry? Carried.

Back to you, Ms Martel, with section 62.

Ms Martel: It may be that given the discussion we've just had, this can be cleared up. Let me ask the question before I move it. The "licence is subject to the conditions prescribed by the regulations." Is there any other section except for section 62 where some of the things that might be imposed on a licence actually appear? Or does it all appear under section 4 in terms of what may be on a licence and then anything after that goes into regulations?

Miss Hunter: May I answer that question? I'm not sure I understand it. Section 62 is the section really that deals with conditions that can be on licences or on authorizations. The conditions on licences can come from two places. They can come from the minister or somebody within the ministry to whom that power has been delegated, or they can be imposed by regulations. All that 62(6) says is, "We don't want the minister and the regulations having conflicting conditions." The minister can impose conditions, but he's not going to be able to conflict with any conditions that have been imposed by regulation. That's why it doesn't refer to the act. It doesn't need to because a licence can't conflict with the act.

Ms Martel: Okay, I will withdraw that.

1700

The Vice-Chair: We'll look at page 32, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 62(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "The minister may, in an authorization given under this act" in the first and second lines and substituting "If a provision of this act permits something to be done with the authorization of the minister, the minister may, in the authorization."

This morning we heard a lot of concern about the amount of control, through regulations, of this act. This change responds to those concerns we had had expressed. We believe it clarifies that authorizations may only be given where the act specifically refers to an authorization. We think this amendment clarifies that.

Ms Martel: I'm not sure I understand that, but I think the second thing I heard from people was a real concern that under this section you could basically have an authorization that contravened anything that was already in the act or the regulations. That is, as I get it, the second half of this, which hasn't been addressed.

Mr Chudleigh: That basically was an incorrect assumption by some of the witnesses today.

Could you repeat your concern?

Ms Martel: I raised this when I spoke to the bill as well. As I read what's currently in place, which is where I think other people are coming from, the concern we all have is that through this particular section you allow the minister to authorize any act that may be quite contrary to the act itself or any of the regulations. What is the point, then, of having an act if the minister can do whatever he wants, quite outside of what we're trying to deal with today? I think that is what I heard other people say, like folks from CELA, the World Wildlife Fund and the Animal Alliance of Canada.

Forgive me, but the change you're providing doesn't clear that up for me, because the whole second part of the sentence continues and says, "permit for the purpose of the authorization any act or omission." It's the second part of this that I continue to have a problem with, because it still gives me the impression the minister can do whatever he wants, regardless.

Mr Chudleigh: But only in those parts of the act where that authorization is allowed. If it isn't specified, the minister has no authority on it.

Ms Martel: But in those sections the minister could still contravene the act.

Mr Chudleigh: Yes, he could, and has done in the current act; he has that authority there as well. It's used for the collecting of scientific materials or other similar prohibited activities that may be necessary for research or for educators or those kinds of things.

Mr Michael Brown: I have a great deal of difficulty with this clause. As you know, our amendment, which will probably be ruled out of order, just asks to strike this clause. We're having great difficulty understanding it. Could you give us some very specific examples of what this would be used for? Because it gives the minister -- in the north we usually call the Minister of Natural Resources the imperial authority anyway. This is taking it a little bit farther.

Mr Chudleigh: Could I ask Miss Hunter to comment on it?

Miss Hunter: What this does is it carries forward something that exists under the current Game and Fish Act. It's an ability the ministry needs to have to respond to special situations.

What the current act says in a number of places is, "Except with the written authority of the minister and subject to any terms and conditions that he may impose, no person shall...." The same approach was taken there, only we've been a bit more up front here, because we've made it clear that if authorizations are given, there are instances when the people will be authorized to do things that are otherwise not permitted under the act.

An example of that is this: Section 39 says, "The minister may authorize a person to capture, kill or possess wildlife for educational or scientific purposes." If the minister was not able to have that power, scientists at an accredited university who wanted to do a study of one of our specially protected invertebrates or animals would not be able to do so because it would be prohibited under the bill.

The minister needed some flexibility to be able to say: "Mr University Professor, we've reviewed your proposal. It seems reasonable. We want to impose these conditions on what you're doing, but we're going to let you collect 10 monarch butterflies." There isn't an open season for monarch butterflies, but if there were, you could do it out of the open season and he might say you could use something to catch them that's otherwise prohibited in the act. That's the kind of flexibility that is given here. It is something that exists under the current act, and it's necessary for the ministry to carry out some of the activities they feel need to be authorized.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand the legitimate use of a section like this, but the way it's worded provides such huge latitude to the ministry. Is there not a more focused approach you could have to this particular issue than just carte blanche, saying, "He or she can authorize anything they wish"?

Mr Chudleigh: I understand this is actually a more clarified way to approach this. It's up front; you know all the sections in which the minister has that power.

Ms Martel: I think that's the problem; we don't because it's not referenced anywhere under 62(6). If you were to put that in and then say, as a part of (7), "The following are included: The minister, for educational or scientific purposes," whatever it might be used for under the current act now, then I think you'd have a lot more comfort from people. If you've given us one example, there are probably a couple of others. My question is, why can't we reference those either in the act or in the regulations to make it clear under what conditions 62(6) applies?

Miss Hunter: Excuse me; that's what this motion to amend would do. It would make it clear that you have to go to this section in the act and ensure that you have an authority to issue an authorization under that section. That was always the way the act was drafted, so this change is legally neutral, but it makes it clearer that you have to go to a section in the act and see if it's applicable. So if you want to see if the minister can issue an authorization to one of the members of the Ontario Hawking Club to take a specially protected raptor from the wild, you'd go to section 40(4) and you'd say he does have that power and he could do that. If you wanted to see whether he could give authority to somebody to take, for example, specially protected wildlife from the wild, we talked about the authority he could use to take it, and we'd also give those people an authority to keep the species in captivity.

This is really a carry-through from the former act of necessary powers to permit the act to be flexible in individual situations.

Ms Martel: Can I ask where it appears in the current act?

Miss Hunter: There's an example in 17(1) which says, "Except with the written authority of the minister and subject to such terms and conditions as he or she may impose, no person shall," and then it goes on and deals with hunting for hire.

Ms Martel: Part of that section now reappears, because we've already dealt with it.

1710

Miss Hunter: I am trying to find science and collection. Yes, section 52 says, "Except with the written authority of the minister and subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose, no person shall take a game animal by any means for educational or scientific purposes."

There are more examples and those powers have been carried through to the new bill. There are more in the new bill because the bill goes into areas that the act did not originally go into, like wildlife in captivity. There are some additional authorizations, but they existed before.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is carried.

We're looking at 33, a Liberal motion.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that subsection 62(6) of the bill be struck out.

Mr Chudleigh: Just given our discussion, I don't think I can support that.

Mr Gilchrist: Ted, just say no.

Mr Chudleigh: No.

Mr Michael Brown: We remain sceptical of the powers that are being given here. We remain a lot less than convinced that there isn't going to be a kind of law of unintended consequence that occurs here in that a minister of the crown will be given authority to do without any kind of supervision of the Legislature, or anyone else for that matter, things we wouldn't want. Part of the problem in this business is that we think of the present minister we have or the last minister we had, or whatever, but ministers and governments change. As legislators we have to be very careful about what authorities we're really granting. This seems pretty wide; it looks like you could drive a truck through it.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion fails.

The next one is 33.1. It's at the end of your package and it's out of order.

Shall section 62, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 63 to 74 carry? Carried.

We look at page 34.

Ms Martel: Madam Chair, given that we didn't have acceptance of "fish farm" or "fish farm licence," I might as well withdraw this because it carries from that earlier section.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

Shall sections 75 to 78 carry? Carried.

We look at page 35, subsection 79(1).

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 79(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "The minister may authorize a municipality to pass bylaws" in the first and second lines and substituting "A municipality may, with the authorization of the minister, pass bylaws".

This change clarifies the ministry's past and current position with municipalities, requiring approval from the Ministry of Natural Resources before passing bylaws respecting issuance of licences to hunt. The upcoming changes to the Municipal Act may achieve the same end. A consequential amendment may be made in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in concert with the Municipal Act legislative changes. The above motion has been prepared in the event that a decision is made to clarify this point through directly amending the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. It's a clarification.

The Vice-Chair: Comments? Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 79, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 80 carry? Carried.

We'll look at page 36, a Liberal motion.

Mr Michael Brown: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Ecological sustainability

"80.1 The minister shall ensure that actions authorized under this act or the regulations are compatible with ensuring the ecological sustainability of the wildlife that are the subject of those actions."

The reason for this amendment is that the act, strangely enough, does not conform with any current thinking regarding biodiversity or ecological sustainability at all. It would seem to me that presenting an act in the late 1990s that doesn't refer at all to the sustainability of the ecosystem is one that is certainly out of step with other legislation that the MNR has proposed and dealt with in recent years. We would see that most members -- all members -- would be supportive of this minor effort just trying to ensure that the goal of the bill is ecological sustainability.

Mr Chudleigh: We have published our statement of environmental values and every action we take must be consistent with those values. A statement re sustainability, while simple on the surface, potentially would subject every decision the ministry made to a legal challenge and it could bring the Ministry of Natural Resources to a standstill. We're working to develop a formalized function of conservation for application by policy.

Mr Michael Brown: That's really interesting, but I take you back to Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, which does contain an even more explicit definition of sustainability. It was supported by virtually everybody in the province, all groups, and it was included in the act. It seems to me that act is not challenged on a daily basis and every decision --

Mr Chudleigh: It might not be now but it's very close. There are a tremendous number of legal potholes that are sitting down the road on that bill.

Mr Michael Brown: It may be just that the government did not accept the very valuable opposition amendments at the time, he says.

Mr Chudleigh: In all humility.

Mr Michael Brown: Yes, in all humility.

None the less, I find it strange that we wouldn't have at least something similar to this. I asked this morning of a group if they could explain to me what the definition of sustainability or conservation or whatever words you choose might be. At least this amendment attempts to put this into the legislation.

Mr Chudleigh: For the reason I stated I can't support the amendment.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour?

Mr Michael Brown: I think we should have -- what do you call that? -- a roll call.

The Vice-Chair: A voice vote? Okay, a recorded vote.

Ayes

Michael Brown, Martel.

Nays

Chudleigh, Danford, Froese, Gilchrist, Klees.

The Vice-Chair: The motion is defeated.

We'll look at 36.1.

Ms Martel: It's the same amendment so I will withdraw it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

Shall section 81 carry? Carried.

Shall section 82 carry? Carried.

Looking at page 37, a government motion.

1720

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the English version of subclause 83(1)(b)(i) of the bill be amended by striking out "the culturing of fish" in the fifth line and substituting "aquaculture."

Mr Michael Brown: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? The motion carries.

Shall section 83, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 84 to 87 carry? Carried.

Page 38.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that section 88 of the bill be amended by inserting "or ammunition" after "firearm" in the third line.

When a conservation officer asks to check your firearm, he may also be allowed to check your ammunition.

Mr Gilchrist: For the record, this amendment is in response to some suggestions brought forward by Mr Ouellette.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 88, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 89 to 94 carry? Carried.

We're looking at section 94.1.

Mr Chudleigh: I move the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Exemption from act or regulations

"94.1 The minister, for the purpose of investigations and other law enforcement activities under this act, may exempt a conservation officer from the application or any provision of this act or the regulations, subject to such conditions as the minister considers necessary."

When a conservation officer goes to perhaps buy illegal game or parts, he needs to be exempt from doing that or he may be charged in that action.

Mr Klees: I'd just like to clarify that the second-to-last line that was read by the parliamentary assistant should be clarified. He said "from the application or any provision" and I think it should be "of any provision."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees.

Mr Chudleigh: My apologies.

Mr Michael Brown: I just want to clarify. So this would be this act only?

Mr Chudleigh: Yes.

Mr Michael Brown: So it doesn't apply to any other -- okay.

The Vice-Chair: Those in favour? Those opposed? Motion carried.

Shall sections 95 to 103 carry? Okay.

Shall section 104 carry? All right.

Looking at page 40, government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Compensation; offence under subs 46(1) or 54(1)

"104.1 (1) A court that convicts a person of an offence under subsection 46(1) or 54(1) may order the person to compensate the minister for expenses incurred by the minister in capturing or killing any farmed animal, wildlife or invertebrate that was released.

"Exception

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the person who kept or possessed the farmed animal, wildlife or invertebrate before it was released.

"Compensation; offence under subs 61(2)

"(3) A court that convicts a person of an offence under subsection 61(2) may order the person to compensate the minister for any amount collected by the person on behalf of the crown that has not been remitted to the crown."

The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Chudleigh: I'm just waiting for Mr Klees to correct me. That was all.

Mr Klees: You did it perfectly that time.

Mr Chudleigh: This is a clause to assist the ministry. If a wild game animal were to escape, the owner of that animal must recapture that animal with all haste. If he fails to do so, the minister may authorize someone to go and do that job. If that person is then convicted of the offence of an escaped animal, the minister may collect the costs of recurring -- no? I'm in the wrong act?

Mr Michael Brown: We're having a fight at the front table here.

Miss Hunter: May I clarify?

Mr Chudleigh: Yes.

Miss Hunter: There is an obligation on people who keep farm wildlife and other wildlife in captivity to keep them captive, and if they escape, they have to recapture them. There is already in the act a provision that permits the minister to recover his costs if he has to go out and do that.

It was brought to our attention by the OFAH that we had neglected to leave it possible for us to seek compensation from somebody who's a vandal, who does something to a farm or something where wildlife is kept in captivity; they break the fence. This would permit us, if they were convicted of the offence to, at the time of the conviction, recover from them the costs of recovering wildlife.

Mr Chudleigh: My apologies.

Mr Brisbane: Just a point of clarification: It was the agricultural community that brought it to our attention.

Mr Chudleigh: It deals with the issue of vandalization in that escape situation. Sorry.

Mr Michael Brown: So this is to go after the person who actually caused the release.

Miss Hunter: The vandals.

Mr Chudleigh: Yes. Somebody who might have knocked down a fence.

Mr Michael Brown: It doesn't necessarily have to be a vandal.

Mr Chudleigh: A person who was convicted of the offence.

The Vice-Chair: Any further questions. Those in favour? Those opposed? Motion carries.

Shall sections 105 to 109 carry? Carried.

Page 41.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that paragraph 4 of section 110 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"4. Prohibiting or regulating the hunting, trapping or possession of wildlife, other than:

"(i) prescribing open seasons or closed seasons for wildlife,

"(ii) prescribing times of day during which the hunting of wildlife is or is not permitted, or

"(iii) prescribing limits on the number of wildlife of a species, sex, size, age or type prescribed by the regulations that may be killed, captured or possessed."

This is a clarification of the prescribed opening season hunting times, including the ability to prescribe hunting hours within the day.

Mr Michael Brown: Is this different?

Miss Hunter: Yes. The difference is subparagraph (ii).

Mr Michael Brown: I hadn't picked that up. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Michael Brown: Not relating to this. Over and over again many of us do receive complaints about the ministry providing enough lead time on indicating the opening and closing of seasons, just to bring that to your attention, which I'm sure is done on a regular basis anyway.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Opposed? Motion carries.

We're looking at page 42, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that the English version of paragraph 35 of section 110 of the bill be amended by striking out "the culturing of fish" in the first line and substituting "aquaculture."

The Vice-Chair: Any comments? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

The next one, page 43.

Mr Chudleigh: -- refers to a 13(1) motion.

Ms Martel: Which I think was voted down.

Mr Chudleigh: It was defeated.

The Vice-Chair: Withdrawn?

Ms Martel: Yes.

1730

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Looking at the next one, page 44.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that paragraph 54 of section 110 of the bill be amended by inserting "24(2)" after "20(1)" in the third line.

This change provides flexibility for exemptions from the prohibition --

The Vice-Chair: No, we've got the wrong script there.

Miss Hunter: It's related to the change in section 24 with respect to how you exempt people who are hunting from vessels.

Mr Chudleigh: Section 24(2) provides for an exemption for people who are hunting from vessels such as canoes. It again is one of Mr Ouellette's concerns.

The Vice-Chair: Is there any further discussion? Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Looking at the next one, page 45, Mr Chudleigh.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that paragraph 54 of section 110 of the bill be amended by inserting "36(5)," after "36(3)" in the fifth line.

This change provides for flexibility for exemptions from the prohibition-of-spoilage section. This approach is consistent with that used in other sections of the bill and deals with the needs of the aquacultural group.

The Vice-Chair: Any questions or discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Page 46, Mr Brown.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm going to withdraw this amendment, as it dealt with the falconry amendment that was unsuccessful.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Ms Martel, the next one is yours and it's identical.

Ms Martel: It's the same, so I will withdraw it.

The Vice-Chair: All right. Thank you. Mr Brown?

Mr Michael Brown: I move that paragraph 55 of section 110 of the bill be amended by striking out "June 9, 1997" in the second line and substituting "the day this act received royal assent."

The purpose of putting this amendment is to change the effective date of the restrictions to the date that this bill receives royal assent rather than the retroactive date of June 9, 1997. It was presented by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and is of concern to many people who are in the hunting dog community.

The Vice-Chair: Comments?

Mr Chudleigh: Could I have just a moment, please?

The Vice-Chair: Yes.

Mr Chudleigh: There are a number of sections in the bill that refer to restricting operations to the date of the introduction of the bill. The government feels those restrictions should be upheld.

Mr Michael Brown: Why is the date of royal assent not more practical?

Mr Chudleigh: Because some of the numbers of people in those kinds of businesses have expanded. They knew at the time the bill was introduced that they would not be able to do that, but they've gone ahead and done that. I suppose they've been hoping that this would take place. We're not prepared to do that at this time.

Mr Michael Brown: It seems to me not unreasonable that people would have the assumption that a bill that is not law wouldn't necessarily be in force until it is.

Mr Chudleigh: There is legislative precedent for it. If it were to be prior to the date of first reading, I think you would have a point.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion fails.

Shall section 110, as amended, carry? Carried.

We will look at section 111, a government motion.

Mr Chudleigh: I move that subsection 111(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"2.1 prescribing times of day during which the hunting of wildlife is or is not permitted."

This change simply clarifies that prescribing open season hunting times, including the ability to prescribe hunting hours within a day, is sometimes required for hunting regulations. It's the flip side of the earlier regulation transferring the responsibility from the Lieutenant Governor to the minister.

The Vice-Chair: Are there any further comments or questions? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion carries.

Shall section 111, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 112 to 126 carry?

Mr Michael Brown: No, we go to 125.

The Vice-Chair: All right. We'll go from section 112 to 125. Carried.

Section 126.

Mr Michael Brown: This is the title of the act. I was dismayed, and I wonder if I could have an explanation for why the title of this act doesn't say the "Fair Fish and Fair Wildlife Conservation Act."

Mr Chudleigh: The minister chose it.

The Vice-Chair: Any further --

Mr Chudleigh: There was an amendment that was put down.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, we're coming to that. We're going to do that after we've done the schedules.

Shall section 126 carry? Carried.

Shall schedules 1 to 11 carry?

Now we're looking back to section 1, which we agreed to stand down.

Mr Chudleigh: If I might make a comment, the specific addition of products that you've suggested moves it into an area which we have not been deeply involved in before. It includes, for example, products such as fur coats, moccasins and art from bones. We are not prepared to move into this area extensively without further studying the implications of this move. I understand where you're coming from and we have some sympathy with the examples you used, but there are these other consequences to the action and at this time we are probably not prepared to move into that area. But --

Mr Klees: We support them in spirit.

Mr Chudleigh: Support in spirit.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion fails.

The second one then, Ms Martel. Is this the same?

Ms Martel: It's the same rationale.

Mr Chudleigh: It is the same rationale.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. So you will withdraw?

Ms Martel: No.

The Vice-Chair: Oh, okay. Those in favour? I'm sorry; I didn't let you move it. Perhaps we'd better do that.

Ms Martel: I move that subsection 1(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a), by adding "and" at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:

"(c) a product, derivative or other thing made from an animal or invertebrate that is not easily distinguishable from a product or other thing made from an animal or invertebrate to which this act applies shall be deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be a product or other thing made from the animal or invertebrate to which this act applies."

The Vice-Chair: Any discussion? Any comment? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

1740

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE BON SAMARITAIN

Bill 166, An Act to protect Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical or First Aid Services / Projet de loi 166, Loi visant à exonérer les personnes de la responsabilité concernant des services médicaux ou des premiers soins fournis bénévolement en cas d'urgence.

The Vice-Chair: I am going to ask the committee for direction here. Committee members, we do have to call staff over for Bill 166.

Mr Gilchrist: Which staff?

The Vice-Chair: Legislative counsel.

Mr Gilchrist: Why? Has someone summoned them?

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. We have counsel here; we can call research. This is the Good Samaritan Act, private member's Bill 166.

Mr Gilchrist: We could be doing things before the researcher comes: inviting any comments or submissions from any of the three parties.

The Vice-Chair: Well, I'm at the discretion of the committee here on this.

Mr Chudleigh: Are you prepared to vote on it, to present it to the House?

Mr Michael Brown: If I may tell you frankly, I know absolutely nothing about this.

Ms Martel: Was there a committee schedule that we would deal with this after --

The Vice-Chair: Yes, there was, and I understand there was agreement, if we had time, to --

Mr Gilchrist: We had all-party agreement, plus the notice of the sitting of the committee today did specify both bills.

The Vice-Chair: Can we start with taking a five-minute recess?

Mr Klees: No. Let's just do it. Let's get on with it.

Interjections.

Mr Gilchrist: Perhaps, Madam Chair, if it's helpful to the two members opposite: We had unanimous support in the House last Thursday, in fact both House leaders of the opposition parties as well. We had a unanimous vote at noon. Very simply, the bill simply relieves anyone from any civil liability if they render aid at a roadside emergency or at a restaurant if someone is choking. We are one of only two provinces left in Canada that do not have a Good Samaritan Act in some form. Most American states do.

Unlike the European standard, which requires you to do something, and therefore might pose a greater concern if you think you're being called upon to be a doctor when you have no medical skills, this bill simply says that if you act reasonably and try to assist somebody in a case of emergency, you won't be held liable for anything that may happen except in the case of gross negligence, which is doing something that you should know not to do. So it doesn't relieve anybody from doing something silly at the side of the road, but it would relieve anybody who, acting reasonably and with good intentions, sets out to help someone: moves them off to the side of the road or gets a blanket or in any way performs any first-aid assistance.

The bill is literally one page, and I'm certainly not trying to abbreviate the debate on it, but again, even in the House, there were no -- let me underline "no" -- reservations expressed. The speakers from all three parties said they saw this as being something noteworthy.

Mr Michael Brown: So what is it that you're looking for at this point?

Mr Gilchrist: Going through it clause by clause, quite frankly. It's got two clauses plus the title. I have no changes to make. It had the approval of the Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario.

In response to the publicity the passage had, I received a letter from the Comber Fire Department, Comber, Ontario. The chap who wrote, having completed 40 years of service as a volunteer firefighter, the last 20 of which has been as deputy fire chief, supports the Good Samaritan Act without hesitation.

To quote him, "Not only do I need the Good Samaritan Act, 1997, for my personal protection, I have seen and experienced situations where if it had not been for volunteer good Samaritans, people would have died or would have been seriously maimed and injured." It goes on in other detail. That's from a Mr Bob Miner of Comber, Ontario.

Unless the clerk has received any other correspondence in reference to the publicity we gave --

Clerk of the Committee: This is the background from leg research. I do have one exhibit to distribute.

Mr Gilchrist: I would certainly invite questions from my colleagues opposite.

The Vice-Chair: Before you do that, I think all of you have in front of you now the report of the subcommittee. Perhaps we could just deal with that and strike it out or whatever is the decision of the committee.

Mr Gilchrist: I move the adoption of the subcommittee report.

The Vice-Chair: If there's no debate, then we can move on to looking at -- oh, we need to pass the subcommittee report. All in favour? All right.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. Again, if the clerk can hand out anything he's received, and I'd be pleased to have him hand out a copy of this letter, which is the only correspondence sent to me directly, save and except oral communications on a radio station last week.

Ms Martel: Is this a friend of yours?

Mr Gilchrist: I have no idea who this woman is. It would appear to be a response, I have to assume, because it has been addressed to the clerk, to the fact that, as noted in the subcommittee report, we invited comment over the parliamentary channel. I think perhaps this author has confused my bill with something else.

Mr Chudleigh: The Comber Fire Department letter was signed by Bob Miner, who is a descendant of the Jack Miner of the bird sanctuary down in Point Pelee. Comber is on the 401, just north of Leamington, a marvellous part of Ontario, one that Mr Klees is familiar with.

Mr Klees: Speaking of Mr Klees, may I just make a brief comment? I'd like to commend Mr Gilchrist for having brought this bill forward. I have had a number of my constituents comment on this initiative. It is certainly welcomed by the medical profession particularly, and I hope that we can do the honourable thing here and support Mr Gilchrist in ensuring that this bill becomes law in this province.

Ms Martel: You had me before you said, "honourable thing."

Mr Michael Brown: Does the ministry have a position on this bill?

Mr Gilchrist: The ministry endorses the bill, and did that day. Mr Newman, speaking in his capacity as parliamentary assistant, indicated the ministry supported it.

Interjections.

Mr Michael Brown: I move we report the bill.

Mr Gilchrist: If there's no comment to the contrary, Madam Chair, I wonder if I could ask if we move to clause by clause.

The Vice-Chair: Well, Mr Brown has moved the report of the bill.

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, thank you.

The Vice-Chair: I'm advised we have to go through clause-by-clause. Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report to the bill to the House? Agreed.

Thank you very much. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1751.