Environment Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I find your comments quite fascinating because that's really the challenge that faces us as a federal government. How do we bring stakeholders together, given that there are, I wouldn't say, disparate but certainly separate policy frameworks on how to approach this issue at different levels of government?

Mr. Hazell, to close off, perhaps you could expand upon your colleagues' answers to that question. Are there specific examples of how we can better improve our policy framework to work with different levels of government in protecting habitat either through land use planning or whatever? Also, are there gaps right now in our federal policy as far as looking at an ecosystem approach rather than a per-species approach is concerned?

[Stephen Hazell]

My first comment is that right now there is actually quite good collaboration among the levels of government, and particularly with the not-for-profit organizations who are working on the ground on the landscape, the folks like Nature Conservancy of Canada and Wildlife Habitat Canada, etc. There is pretty good cooperation, but I have to say that we have pretty much lost one of the very best tools we had to ensure that we had a broader ecological focus, and that's the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. One of the really interesting things that's happened in the Mackenzie gas project—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Surely it's not lost.

[Stephen Hazell]

It is pretty much lost. After the act has come into force, we now have less than 1% of the environmental assessments taking place than before, but that's a separate argument.

I just want to say regarding the Mackenzie gas project that as part of that whole effort... and with this idea of conservation first, there was an effort made in the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy—which is in place and is a total vision for the Northwest Territories of having protected areas that are linked, that would support solid habitat conservation across the landscape while potentially allowing this pipeline to be built.... So there was a huge effort made, and I point to World Wildlife Fund Canada, in particular, but also some groups like CPAWS Northwest Territories and DU, Ducks Unlimited, based in the DU group in Yellowknife. But a lot of that was driven through the environmental assessment process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Hazell. I'm going to have to discontinue there.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Mr. Davidson, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

We've heard today that we need both best management practices and government measures, so I'm going to focus on government measures.

I believe there is strong scientific consensus that the main reason for the loss of animal species is human-caused degradation of habitat, and the loss of areas where animals live, breed, raise their young and feed is the main cause of endangerment for over 80% of Canada's species at risk.

Mr. Davidson, could you comment on how disappearing animal and plant species threaten our valuable natural heritage as well as our economy?

[Ian Davidson]

Thank you very much.

I would go back to my earlier comments. We've been talking a lot about grasslands, and prairie grasslands in particular, and for the longest time there has been a range of species on the grassland landscape that shared that habitat with humans.

In recent years, particularly in the last couple of decades, we've seen a significant loss in a large number of species, in birds, mammals, reptiles and so on and so forth. Also for the longest time we've had human production, humans working on that landscape, particularly the ranching community. It's interesting how those evolved together over the last hundred years. In the ranching areas in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, in particular, we still find quite a lot of biodiversity, with many of the threatened species holding on because on the productive landscape, ranching tends to mimic some of the conditions that were on that landscape many hundreds of years ago before the introduction of cattle and so on.

I go back to the devolution of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration lands, which we as an organization see as both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is that there is production happening on the landscape that favours many of these threatened species, but with the loss of that and the potential sell-off of those lands to private interests, we lose a real opportunity, I think, to show that on the Canadian landscape, particularly the grasslands, there is an opportunity where humans and wildlife can co-exist. Many of the threatened species that we worry about, particularly the SARA-listed ones, are going to struggle if we don't find ways of combining human and wildlife needs on that landscape.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Davidson, you mentioned SARA. I think that strong SARA legislation is needed to protect species and their habitats in provinces where there is essentially no legislation or only weak laws; to meet Canada's international obligations; to ensure the consistent recovery of species across jurisdictions; and to help maintain Canadian industries' social licence to operate.

Maybe Mr. Hazell would want to answer this. Could you comment on SARA?

[Stephen Hazell]

There are lots of issues with respect to implementing the Species at Risk Act. Our view is that the act does not need to be rewritten. The act itself is working well. It's really a question of implementing it.

There have been challenges, and I certainly know that the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have struggled to meet their requirements for developing recovery strategies. But I think that could have been predicted. When you bring an act into force and you have hundreds of species at risk, it's going to take a while to figure out how to manage each of them.

Ian mentioned just one of the many implementation problems: what do you have when you have foxes and chickens on the landscape? That's an issue.

Our view is that it is not really a good use of the government's time and Parliament's time to reopen the legislation. It's working reasonably well.

I think that Bill Wareham's comments with respect to providing incentives to landowners regarding species at risk on their property need to be considered. There are provisions in the act to develop a regulation on compensation. The government hasn't yet brought forward any regulation. That may be worth a look. This is all speculative, but I think it's perhaps worth a look.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hazell. So that would be one of your recommendations, then.

[Stephen Hazell]

I wouldn't say we need a regulation on compensation. I'd say the committee might want to think about it.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The environment minister told the Canadian press last September that the government is looking to revamp SARA. The minister said the act can be more efficient and “more effective”. In your opinion, does SARA need implementation or streamlining?

[Stephen Hazell]

In my view, it just needs to be implemented.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Has the government's implementation of the act been characterized by delays in developing recovery strategies, identifying critical habitat, and protecting areas once they have been recognized? Can you make recommendations specifically to the committee regarding these issues?

[Stephen Hazell]

I could, but, Bill, do you want to take it?

[Bill Wareham]

Sure, I'd be happy to do that.

The requirement for meeting timelines on recovery plans is really essential. We're seeing an ongoing delay and lag in performance on that front. We're also seeing a tendency towards not listing species that are recommended by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. That's a concern, because unless you have a fallback of provincial governments and other interests supporting recovery strategies and funding habitat conservation activities, these species, despite their threatened status, can get lost in the wake.

Either we need to commit to listing and implementing SARA or we need the government to accommodate and facilitate those collaborative activities between other governments in those jurisdictions to really work on recovering those species. I think we would not like to see a situation in which SARA is degraded to something that seems to be more efficient and can meet its targets but doesn't actually meet the species conservation and recovery objectives that we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

We move now to Mr. Pilon. These are now five-minute rounds.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure who is the best person to answer my question.

I am 54 years old. I live on an island. When I was young, there were a lot of wetlands. In the morning, when we would get up, we'd see turtles on our property. Thanks to urban development, those turtles are no more. I know it's too late.

I grew up on an island and I still live on one. From spring right through to fall, we would go to the beach. We would watch the migratory birds all along the beach. Forty years later, the beach remains, but the birds are gone.

Is there a way to protect that beach land and bring the birds back? Are they gone for good? Which of the three of you would best be able to answer that question?

[Bill Wareham]

It's Bill Wareham here. I could take a shot at that.

In regard to migratory birds particularly, this is where the government needs to play a large role in working with other jurisdictions at a national level. There are some initiatives like that, which are based on collaborations with Mexico and Central American governments and the U.S. government. Those places are facing similar challenges to what we are, in that the development priorities for agricultural lands and natural habitats are intense in many other areas as well, and there's a cumulative loss of habitat along their flyways. We might protect the habitat here in Canada, but if it's not protected in other critical areas throughout the flyway, we lose those species. It's important to protect the breeding grounds, the transition areas where these birds feed on migration routes, and also the wintering areas.

You need a broader scale plan. I think the federal government needs to play a more active role in engaging those other jurisdictions in active planning and priority setting around species that we see declining in the Canadian landscape.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think Mr. Ugarenko was wanting to respond as well.

[Len Ugarenko]

Bill answered most of the question, but having worked internationally, and quite literally, on beaches, for migratory shore birds and sea turtle nesting sites, they can be rehabilitated. It depends on the nature of the interaction and what's going on around them.

Your question was whether can this be turned around. Yes, it can. Boston, for example, put in legislation banning motor vehicles on beaches during the plover nesting season. Many of the resorts around the Caribbean shut their lights off at night. When a sea turtle hatches, there's a fine band of light between the ocean and the sky, and that baby sea turtle heads for that in the water. If there's a light behind it, it goes that way.

It can be done. It depends on the impact initially and how degraded the beach is. If it's not degraded, it's about how it can be rehabilitated and how the folks who are using the beach will cooperate in the rehabilitation effort.

[Ian Davidson]

To quickly build on what Bill and my colleague here have mentioned with respect to migratory species, as we look at the national conservation plan into the future and talk about habitat, we are part of a global network, and many of our wildlife species move between Canada and many other countries. I think it behooves us, as part of the NCP, to embrace other ways of conserving species. That means working in partnership with our friends to the south, and I mean right down to Argentina, because many of our birds move from here to Argentina on an annual basis.

[Len Ugarenko]

There's what's known as the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. It's literally a group of people, working from Arctic Canada right down to the southern tip of Argentina, who are developing sites for these migratory shorebirds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have one minute left.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Could you please explain to us the role that local and provincial naturalist clubs play in habitat conservation?