EDITORIAL & OPINION — COMMENTARY/PDAC — Replacing Bill C-65

In 1996, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada responded jointly to the Endangered Species Bill, C-65. And their objections were sufficiently strong and persuasive that the government took notice.

“Thank God C-65 died on the Order Paper when the last federal election was called,” says David Comba, chairman of the Land Access Committee (a joint committee of the MAC and the PDAC). “The bill was a copy of American legislation and even called for citizen lawsuits.” The American legislation is very punitive and continues to be staunchly criticized by landowners and other stakeholders.

Now the representatives of the mining industry, together with representatives of the pulp and paper sector and environmentalist groups, have joined forces to propose a new law on endangered species.

Bill C-65 resulted in a series of unlikely meetings to seek common ground. Initially, as individual citizens, Gisle Jacob of the Mining Association of Canada and Tony Rotherham and Robert Dcarie of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA) met with Elizabeth May and Rita Morbia of the Sierra Club of Canada, Catherine Austen from the Canadian Nature Federation, and Sandy Baumgartner of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Respect and trust came surprisingly quickly and the Species at Risk Working Group (SRWG) soon became more than just a band of concerned individuals. Over the past six months, corporate, local, provincial and territorial representatives on the PDAC Lands Committee have been working towards a solution to the problems posed by Bill C-65.

“Instead of being on the road in front of the bus, we are now on the bus for a change,” says Comba. “No one, including the federal government, knows what it around the corner and over the hill, but the SRWG has presented the feds with a tremendous opportunity to ‘get it right.'”

Given the patchwork nature of jurisdictional powers across Canada, the SRWG has stressed the need for a safety net, an accord which will not see any transboundary species of animals or plants negatively affected by wrangling over who has the power to do this or that. “I see the federal government playing a significant science advisory role,” says Comba. “For example, a sharp decline in the population of a migratory bird might be caused by problems in a Central or South American country where the bird winters. Co-operation between national governments is essential, as is good science.”

Says the MAC’s Gisle Jacob: “It was a beautiful risk we were taking, and it so happened that it worked. We could find common ground. We were so sick of governments dividing groups that might otherwise get along. For each part of the proposed new legislation, we asked: How does this affect the animal, and how does it affect the worker?”

Robert Dcarie of the CPPA agrees: “Our document represents a balanced view on the issue and has the potential to rally people from various sectors. It is not frequent that conservationists, environmentalists and industry representatives agree on a common vision.”

The issue of endangered species is contentious because saving an animal that lives in a wide-ranging area could mean restricting or even forbidding logging, mining and other human land uses in exceptional circumstances. For example, it is estimated that 28,000 workers in the Pacific Northwest of the United States lost their jobs as a result of ill-conceived attempts to preserve the spotted owl. The culprits, according to Kim Pollock, environmental director for the Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, were bad science, overzealous environmentalists and the punitive American legislation.

The PDAC membership is now being asked to voice their support for the proposed federal law on endgangered species. Copies of the SRWG report can be obtained from the PDAC by faxing requests to (416) 362-0101.