Evidence of meeting #23 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was appointments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, help us understand here. What is the point of order?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I will explain to you. Section 129 of the act reads:
Five years after this section comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.
The act prescribes the composition of the membership of COSEWIC, and that's what the committee is to talk about. But the process of appointments is an executive decision made within the act. It's given to the minister to consult with different bodies to make the decision on who sits on it. But it is a ministerial appointment; it's an order in council appointment. That is beyond the purview of our committee. We are specifically to look at the act.
So I'm going to rule in favour of the point of order and ask that the witness keep his comments—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
There's more debate. If we're going to get into this debate, sir, then we need to have a debate.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm ruling on this point of order so we can continue on with the presentation. What I'm saying is that this isn't in the purview of this committee. We're to talk about the act and not the process, and the comments made by Dr. Hutchings are about the process, which is an executive decision and an executive part of government. I've ruled.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's not debatable. This is a dilatory motion. It's recorded. Shall my decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Okay, I'm overruled.
With that, you can continue on with your presentation.
9:25 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a consequence of the decision, COSEWIC's capacity to assess the status of amphibians in Canada has been reduced—and as a reminder, amphibians are one of the world's most threatened groups of vertebrates.
The minister's decision sets a precedent for determining membership on COSEWIC, which may compromise the real or perceived ability of each member to exercise their discretion in an independent manner, in accordance with subsection 16(6). If so, this will negatively influence COSEWIC's ability to fulfill its legislated responsibility to assess species at risk independently of the consequences of its assessments. Any action that erodes the knowledge base of COSEWIC will erode the confidence decision-makers and society have in the integrity of the advice, weakening the ability of governments to fulfill national and international obligations to protect, conserve, and recover biodiversity.
This leads me to COSEWIC's second recommendation, which is that subsection 16(1) of SARA be modified to include one new word—COSEWIC—and to read:
COSEWIC is to be composed of members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, COSEWIC, and with any experts and expert bodies, such as the Royal Society of Canada, that the Minister considers to have relevant expertise.
Our recommendation, then, is that SARA be amended such that COSEWIC be legislatively recognized as one of the bodies with whom the minister consults prior to issuing ministerial appointments to COSEWIC. The proposed amendment would allow the minister to be fully informed of the potential short-term and long-term consequences associated with any membership decision that involves the rejection of COSEWIC's advice.
Thank you for your attention. That is the end of my verbal presentation.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Dr. Hutchings.
We'll kick off our seven-minute round with Mr. McGuinty.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Dr. Hutchings.
I obviously want to hone in on the last couple of paragraphs of your testimony. I want to make sure Canadians understand this very clearly. COSEWIC is expected to be and is statutorily created to be completely at arm's length and independent from any government. Appointments are made by the Governor in Council, the Minister of the Environment, and the appointments are to be made on the basis of, presumably, scientific expertise, detailed knowledge, to be able to perform a really important function, which is to decide—yes or no—whether a species ought to be classified as one at risk.
Now you're telling us, as the chair of COSEWIC, according to what I understand in plain English in your testimony, which I have written down here, that effectively the previous minister, Mr. Baird.... Are you intimating or are you saying clearly that he basically politically interfered?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
As a point of correction, the initial letter identifying nominees for appointment was sent to Minister Baird. The decision was made by Minister Prentice.
I don't want to suggest that this is indicative of political interference. The concern, given that it had not previously happened, given that COSEWIC's experience since the passage of SARA has been that the result of this nomination process is one in which it submits names to the federal minister for consideration for appointment to COSEWIC, and it has never previously resulted in a rejection of COSEWIC's advice....
This being the first time in which that had taken place, it raised concerns in my mind as chair about the degree to which it influenced or affected COSEWIC in the short term and the long term. That's why I indicated that we now do not have a co-chair responsible for amphibians on the committee; this is a short-term ramification of the decision. In the longer term, given that the act makes it quite clear in my mind that COSEWIC is meant to be an independent, arm's-length body, if society or if anyone should perceive through the rejection of COSEWIC's advice that the committee is not composed of independent individuals, then that might compromise the integrity of COSEWIC's advice and compromise the confidence that decision-makers can have in that advice. That's why I raised the point.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Let me understand this. The previous minister, Mr. Baird, first declined to accept your nomination for co-chair, and then the decision not to nominate a co-chair was followed up by the current minister, Mr. Prentice?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
No. The original letter was sent to Minister Baird, but I did not receive a response from Mr. Baird. The response regarding the appointments came from Minister Prentice.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Had you had any feedback from Minister Baird previously about how this minister and this government were going to respond to your letter?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
No.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Did you have any conversations with Minister Prentice about this?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
I did.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Did you tell Minister Prentice straight up of your concerns?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
I should provide some background. This is one of the reasons for raising this particular amendment in the act. It is not meant to be a crass, politically motivated decision in any respect; it's meant to be a means of strengthening the act in a fairly simple way.
No minister of the environment has ever met with the chair of COSEWIC previously to consider appointments to COSEWIC. The process initially took two months, under Ministers Anderson and Dion, and the time process has lengthened since then. And that's fine; there could be many reasons for it. In fact, I commended Minister Prentice in my correspondence with him and thanked him in person for meeting with me, acknowledging that this was a first and I hoped the first of many such meetings.
However, at that meeting, while we did indeed discuss the other nominees whose appointments were going to be made by the minister, we did not discuss this individual who was not going to be appointed. It was not among the papers that the minister had in front of him to discuss with me, and as a consequence, although I raised it with him as file folders were being closed, it appeared as though perhaps this was not an issue that—well, for whatever reason.... I'm not going to suggest a reason for this not being discussed. I did mention this other person's name, but it was not part of a full consultation.
This suggested amendment would simply allow for an opportunity..... I should also say that I did write to the minister and requested a meeting with him to simply identify some of the short- and long-term ramifications of the decision, with the intent of, in a private way, seeking a solution that was amenable to both, because I—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
No, I didn't, not for the meeting. I also requested reasons for the rejection of COSEWIC's advice. I did receive a response to that, but not—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You did receive reasons back from the minister as to why they had decided to reject your advice?
9:35 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Yes. The reason was that he believed that members should be composed of both returning and new, qualified members. In this instance, I applied that principle, and he felt it was timely to renew the composition of the committee. The individual in question was someone who had been on COSEWIC previously—
9:35 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
It was Dr. David Green. He's a professor of biology and director of the Redpath Museum at McGill University. He was the chair of COSEWIC from 1998 to 2002 and he's been a member of COSEWIC since 1995.
