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.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We've all seen circumstances in which a pipeline or a tar sands project, let's say, has been proposed for an area, and someone determines or suggests that one of the species that would be affected by the project may be at risk. Its population may be in such low numbers that it could be wiped out and made extinct.
Is one of the independent, away-from-politics roles of COSEWIC just simply to understand the health and viability of populations in Canada?
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
In essence, yes. It's basically to give our assessment of the current status of the species in question. The assessment is meant to reflect its likelihood of extinction in the relatively near future and also to identify threats to its persistence.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The IPCC report that has been studying the effects of climate change at the UN for quite some time is essentially, I would suggest, the gold standard in terms of climate change science. Many thousands of folks of high reputation are involved. Am I right so far?
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Yes.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There was a recent status report in terms of the health and viability of polar bears in Canada, but the status report didn't include any of the findings from the IPCC in terms of the short-, medium-, and long-term effects on Canada's Arctic due to climate change. Why is that?
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Oh, in fact the report did.
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
It also included information that was available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all the relevant information in terms of population projections and projections of habitat loss for the polar bear. All that information was in there.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll take a step back to the fisheries. Only about a third of the fish stocks that have been recommended by COSEWIC to government have actually gone on to be listed. Is that right?
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
That's for marine fishes. There hasn't been an endangered or threatened marine fish accepted. The first marine fishes of special concern were accepted by the government earlier this year. There have been freshwater fishes that have been included on schedule 1.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
There were two species, two groups of sockeye salmon. One was in Sakinaw Lake and the other was in Cultus Lake.
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Yes, they were recommended to be listed as endangered.
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
No, they weren't.
9:45 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Based on the responses that were posted in the Canada Gazette, it appears they were not listed because of the perceived economic consequences of reducing catches in a mixed-stock fishery off the coast of British Columbia.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Isn't that interesting? The government has set up this independent scientific body to assess the viability of species in Canada because Canadians, and I'm sure all members of this committee, are concerned about eliminating a species or a subset of a species, yet when recommendations--I'll take the salmon, and I'm sure there are others--have been put forward saying that we as scientists believe this species is threatened as it is, and human impact is one of those things, the government then turns around and says that it doesn't accept that science and is instead going to trump that with an economic argument.
I'm trying to understand how this supports the work of COSEWIC or supports the legitimacy of the work you do.
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
As chair of an advisory body, I think we are there to provide advice. That's our role, from a legislative perspective: to provide advice. I'm sure ministers receive advice from all sorts of different groups and individuals. Our responsibility is simply to ensure that the advice vis-à-vis the science is as objective and unbiased as possible, and also that it's communicated to Canadians and society at the same time so that these decisions can then be judged.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To wrap up here, Chair, looking at the example of polar bears or some other species that is headed towards a more threatened status over time, there is precedent for this government and previous governments to, in a sense, trump the science, to override the legitimate scientific concerns about a species' viability in order to satisfy an economic rationale. Examples are oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, or marine shipping. Even if a species of the iconic nature of a polar bear is threatened, we have precedents showing that the government can simply say, “Thank you for your advice, Doctor, but we're going to allow the drilling to further threaten the species anyway.”
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
It's true that one of the options under the act is to reject COSEWIC's advice.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
We'll go to Mr. Warawa for seven minutes, please.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you so much, Dr. Hutchings, for being here today.
I apologize for interrupting during your presentation, but I did feel that we were heading into you, as chair, possibly making statements that were of a political nature, and I didn't want you to fall into that trap, if that was the intent, because COSEWIC is well respected.
COSEWIC, I believe, was established in 1977. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
That's correct.