Evidence of meeting #24 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 sarac.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Absolutely.
9:35 a.m.
Fisheries Council of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Could I just add to that comment?
9:35 a.m.
Fisheries Council of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
To a certain extent, we're challenging the departments to respond to those issues in the sense that you do have the act. The departments, by and large, have tried to bring forward, if you will, policies and so on and so forth. What we're criticizing, to some extent, is the lack of speed or lack of movement on that.
I don't know if it's the question that we need additional legislative words, but it seems to be that we certainly need some sort of evolution within the departments as to what their interpretations are--along with interested parties--of some of those definitions.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Absolutely.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Maybe you can put that for us in two pages, from one to two.
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
The list of recommendations on one and the definitions on another.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Perhaps.
I remember the debate that went on years ago when SARA was first being deliberated.
Ms. Gelfand, I think we worked a little on that together at the time. You were in another life at the time.
There was a lot of discussion at the time around scientific listing processes and mandatory habitat protection. There was even a lot of debate about an effective and fair compensation regime. Has SARAC addressed those kinds of questions, and do you have any recommendations to make in that regard?
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I'm aware that we have discussed the first two issues. I'm not sure if compensation has come up as a SARAC....
Can any of you comment?
9:35 a.m.
Nature Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I think our discussion around compensation has certainly been that we are anxious to see a uniform policy being developed and uniformly applied. I think all of us at the SARAC table would like to see certainty around the implementation of the act, and compensation is certainly one of those things that many of us support.
I think those questions that had been debated at the time of the development of the legislation are still many things that we've talked about at SARAC and that are strongly supported.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Can you help everyday Canadians understand what you mean by compensation? What are the implications of compensation now? Are we talking about rural Canadians here, taking certain actions that are in support of SARA and the protection of species at risk, being compensated? What do you mean by this?
9:40 a.m.
Nature Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a compensation policy or implementation guidelines that have been developed, so I can't speak to the use of the concept on the landscape at this point in time. As far as I know, it's not being used yet.
9:40 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I don't think it has come into effect at this point. The way most Canadians understand compensation would be the opposite of what we're worried about. When rural Canadians find a burrowing owl on their land, the big worry is the shoot, shovel, and shut up. To prevent this, and to encourage people to delight in having an endangered species on their land, we would have to provide them with some assistance as they continue to manage and use their land, while at the same time protecting the habitat of a critically endangered species. The originators of the legislation 10 years ago were hoping to encourage people to be happy about having an endangered species on their land. They are providing a public good and should therefore be compensated. Remember, they are providing a good for the world, not just for Canada.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Rural landowners are on the front lines of stewardship. It's a pretty well-established property principle that you cannot expropriate without compensation. If you're asking landowners to do away with certain uses of their lands without compensating them, there is an issue there.
How far did the conversation go? Was it about tax credits? Was it about cash compensation?
9:40 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
At this point it has not gotten any further. You need to go back to the act. We're barely getting listed species approved. We have very few recovery plans or strategies in place, hardly any action plans. We're nowhere near the compensation question at this point in the implementation of the act. We are way up at the front end of the act. We haven't gotten to that, because the government hasn't gotten there.
9:40 a.m.
David Suzuki Foundation, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
It is a common misconception that once a species is listed, habitat protection applies to every species. One of the things that we touched on in this act is that it requires the use of a safety net for the federal government to step on a landowner's rights. We haven't seen any instances where that has even begun to happen. The fear that most landowners have is often not appropriate in the context of the act. The act applies to federal land, unless a safety net is invoked. So the federal government is not sitting on people's fence posts watching to see whether they're protecting habitat. It can only be invoked if they invoke the safety net order.
9:40 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Right now, the act applies to federal lands, like the House of Commons, or any national park or national wildlife area. But it applies only to land owned by the Government of Canada.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I heard the answer that you just gave Mr. McGuinty regarding the safety net. However, on page 4 of your brief, you said that:
[...] there are differing views on when the safety net should have been applied, but SARAC members agree that this reflects the necessity for further work to expeditiously define “effective protection”.
I take that to mean that no consensus on the safety net has been reached. Views differ. When you say that there are differing views, that means that your group is not unanimous in its position on how and when the safety net should be applied. Am I right?
9:40 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I just want to check.
9:40 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I just want to make sure that the French and English versions are the same.
9:40 a.m.
David Suzuki Foundation, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
There is a wide diversity of members within the species at risk advisory group committee. Some members feel that the safety net should have applied, and a number of them are involved in a legal challenge. That was on behalf of the spotted owl. The environmental community tried to invoke the safety net to end the logging in spotted owl habitat when there were less than 20 spotted owls in British Columbia.
