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.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
SARA came into effect in 2003. How long have you been the chair?
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
I've been the chair since 2006, and I've been a member of COSEWIC since 2000.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
You've been a member since 2000, so you were with COSEWIC before SARA came into effect.
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
That's correct, yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
How have things changed for COSEWIC since the establishment of SARA?
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
That's an extremely good question.
My perspective is that things have improved considerably. I feel that the quality of the status reports has improved considerably. I feel that the writing of them has improved. I feel that the assessments have improved as well, in large part because they are under increasing scrutiny, and rightly so.
The consequences of our assessments are such that they might infringe upon the rights of individuals, or the abilities of individuals or organizations, to do various things. As a national science advisory body, our reports should be heavily scrutinized. That's a good thing, it's an appropriate thing, and it has resulted in an increased quality in the reports since the passage of SARA.
It has also, I might add, increased the workload considerably as well. When I said that each report goes through a one-and-a-half to two-year review period, I wasn't understating that. It's an extensive review period. It requires a lot of input from a lot of concerned individuals, and thus a lot of time to respond appropriately to concerns that are raised during the review period. I think there's more that we can do in that regard.
That's all to say that the workload has increased, but I think the quality of assessments has increased because of the increased scrutiny.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'm reading from your presentation. Because of time, you were not able to read it in its entirety. It says:
The status assigned to each species is based on consensus, ensured by requiring a two-thirds majority of the votes cast....
There are 31 members. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
There are 31 votes, but there are actually about 45 to 50 people sitting around the table. I believe there are currently 57 members of COSEWIC, but only 31 votes can actually be cast, at a maximum.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
It's basically dependent on who is actually in attendance at the meeting. Some jurisdictions aren't always able to attend. Some members can't attend, for whatever reason, and there's no proxy voting. You can only vote if you have received a ministerial appointment to COSEWIC.
At the last meeting, there were 28 votes cast. I think the previous meeting had 27. At a minimum, two-thirds of the votes cast must be in favour of a particular status.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Yes.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Is the norm a two-thirds versus one-third vote, or is it a stronger support of the recommendation of the--
9:55 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
It very much depends on the species. Some of them surprise you. They certainly surprise me, chairing a group of 60 people for a five- or six-day period.
Some assessments go through very quickly. I'll simply ask for a consensus through a general nodding of heads that there is a feeling that this species is endangered. Sometimes there are circumstances that have made it pretty clear to the committee that endangerment is the case. Other cases require extensive discussion, discussions extending four, five, and six hours on a single species. We might go through multiple motions on status before we achieve one that receives the two-thirds majority required.
There are also occasions on which I feel, as chair, that discussion appears not to be leading towards a scientifically defensible conclusion. Under such circumstances we will withdraw the report, because often it's reflective of deficiencies in the report, either in the communication of the information or in the quality of the information, and a better or a more defensible report would result in a more appropriate assessment and a more defensible assessment. That's another course of action that I'm not afraid to take, and have taken.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That's encouraging to hear. You're saying your goal is to try to get very strong consensus within the group if you sense that some people are struggling with the position.
9:55 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
I constantly remind the members that at the end of the day, it's our assessment and the quality of the report that supports the assessment that will be scrutinized, and that they will be the basis, ultimately, for determining whether a species is included in schedule 1 or not, or indeed whether it's sent back to COSEWIC. From the minister's perspective, I think it behooves us to ensure that we've done the best job we can in providing the advice that we're legislatively required to do.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Well, the question I have is going to take longer than that, so I'll just quickly ask you what amount of discretion you believe a minister should have in determining who is going to be appointed to COSEWIC. You're making a recommendation; should your recommendation always be respected, or should the minister retain discretion?
9:55 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
I absolutely believe that the minister should retain discretion. These are not political appointments. They are ministerial appointments. Insofar as they are ministerial appointments, the Minister of the Environment is ultimately responsible for this act and to ensure that the sections of the act are adhered to. One of those sections, indeed, pertains to the independence of members on COSEWIC.
I think it's absolutely appropriate for the minister to have that discretion. The basis for the proposed recommendation was really motivated by an insurance that on those occasions when the minister might wish to reject COSEWIC's advice, it might be appropriate to discuss that with the chair of COSEWIC, simply to ensure that he or she is as fully informed as possible of the potential ramifications of that decision before it's made.
It's simply really a suggestion for consultation with those who are perhaps best positioned not to criticize or commend but to draw attention to the potential ramifications.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you so much.
Mr. Trudeau, will you kick us off on a five-minute round?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to follow up on Mr. Warawa's line of questioning, which I found extremely important. It had to do with the extent to which COSEWIC verifies assessments after the report comes out. You talked about a year and a half, and I assume people outside of COSEWIC are involved. Would consultations take place around the country?
9:55 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
Basically, after the first draft of the report is completed, that draft is sent to all federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions that are responsible for the species; all wildlife management boards established under land claims agreements and responsible for the wildlife species in question; and any other outside experts, such as the polar bear specialist group for the IUCN.
After that process--from the time of the submission of the first draft until COSEWIC gets its final copies and votes--it is about one and a half to two years.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Okay. Thank you.
You've made a tremendously strong case for the rigorous scientific professionalism of the people around the table, particularly when it comes to a report that might be well-meaning but not quite at the level required for the science or the communications or something, which is why you would withdraw it rather than have it voted down, in many cases.
My question around that is that if COSEWIC is doing such a complete, comprehensive job of assessing the science, how come we have so many consultations after the report lands on the minister's desk? What sorts of consultations are being done over the following years, before it is acted upon?
10 a.m.
Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings
That is outside the purview of COSEWIC. My understanding is that the consultations are there to inform those who might be potentially affected by a legal listing decision in order to provide information to them on what COSEWIC suggested, to inform them of the basis for COSEWIC's assessment, and to interact with them accordingly.