Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Julie Gelfand]

When SARAC operates, it operates on a couple of meetings a year. Usually, the Government of Canada will be providing us with some documents to respond to, at which time individual members are providing advice from their own association or from their own group. It's not always a prerequisite that we all agree on what we're saying altogether before we send it back to the government. It's not the way SARAC works in real time. The government will come up and say, “Here's our policy on X. What do you think?” Everybody will just respond back. Then they'll come up with the next one: “Here's our policy on Y. What do you think?” It's not that the government presents the policy and then we go away and try to figure out what our consensus is and then come back.

What you have in front of you today is actually a time where all the committee members have agreed on a very short timeline in order to get it into you. They have agreed on the major issues that we think you need to be looking at when you're looking at the Species at Risk Act.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

In the brief you say SARAC appreciates, SARAC stresses, SARAC believes, SARAC strongly urges, SARAC strongly emphasizes. When you have some of these stronger descriptives, is this a strong consensus or is it because SARAC as a group, as a committee, feels strongly? Both?

[Julie Gelfand]

As a committee, we feel strongly that these are areas where the consensus is quite clear and where we believe you need, as a committee, to spend your time looking at. On those “strongly emphasize” comments, when Ms. Duncan asked where you should spend your time, it's in those areas.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The first testimony we heard in the legislative review of SARA was from the department officials. You do have some department officials that are part of SARAC but not part of this brief today. What role do those officials play in their involvement with SARAC?

[Sarah Wren]

They play a role in providing us with contacts when we have questions about the development of policies or how things are being conducted within the core departments. They provide us with feedback, analysis, and presentations on progress to date. They certainly sit back and let the SARAC members, who are non-governmental members, debate, discuss, and reach conclusions as need be.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do they provide any input on the consultation process? One of your frustrations is how long this is taking. Do they provide any input on why things are taking so long?

[Sarah Wren]

We get regular updates at our SARAC meetings, and certainly by e-mail, about where things are in the timeline and the development of draft policies. We've certainly seen the policy suite in draft form on several occasions. Yes, we do get updates from them regularly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Good.

SARA is a relatively young piece of legislation. The first testimony was from the department, and we heard that the beginning stage of the implementation of the act was slow, but it is now accelerating. They're optimistic that it will continue to become more and more effective in its applications.

On page 2, under “Overarching Perspectives”, and during your testimony, you said that SARAC is disappointed that it's taking too long to finalize and implement. Then on page 3, halfway through the second paragraph, you say:

SARAC is of the view that these consultation and cooperative efforts are fundamental to the effective implementation of SARA and can often take considerable time, which can risk putting government out of compliance with statutory timelines....

Here's the balance. Do you have recommendations on how to properly consult and get that needed consultation, that input from the government to meet these timelines? Yes, I've heard loud and clear--we all have--about your recommendations and making sure that it's properly resourced, but how do we get that balance on proper consultation too and those timelines?

[Patrick McGuinness]

Maybe I can comment. That is a critical issue primarily with respect to the fishing industry, and also to the aboriginal peoples, in terms of consultations, because both our sectors, aboriginal peoples and the fisheries, have a widely dispersed number of fishing communities.

Our fishing cycle generally is very intense, for example, from April right through to October. If you have, for example, a consultation cycle from SARA that comes into conflict with that type of fishing season, it creates a difficulty. So you're absolutely right. One aspect in terms of the SARA is that the nine-month window was put in there arbitrarily, but in certain segments--the fishing industry and the aboriginal peoples--it's very difficult if the cycle doesn't match what, in our case, is the fishing season. So you're right, it's a dilemma, and it's not solvable at this point in time.

[Rachel Plotkin]

I think “young” is a fairly subjective word. It's like saying the older I get, the more 40 seems young. Six years can be seen as young, but six years is also a fairly significant amount of time for a species that's in peril and is threatened with extinction.

For a number of the places in the act, there are consultations that are required. One of the main things this report highlights is the lack of completion of recovery strategies. Again, there were 101 recovery strategies completed out of 307, which is about one-third of the recovery strategies that have met their statutory deadline, and 21 out of the 101 have identified critical habit. Again, sometimes it's a matter of consultation and sometimes it's a matter of using the best available science. So I do think we need to differentiate. There are times when consultation is appropriate, and it might take a long time. There are also times when the information is out there, and to ignore it or to delay it jeopardizes the survival of many of Canada's species at risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. Time has expired.

We're going to go to our five-minute round.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much.

And welcome to the witnesses.

I'm quite interested in the safety net provisions and recovery strategies and the lack of enough data or scientific evidence to make decisions. It all seems related to me. We can't have recovery strategies because we don't know enough, maybe, about habitat or the state of the species itself. The safety net provisions, I imagine, are quite radical in terms of asserting federal authority.

As an aside, I would imagine that authority is constitutional, yet you can't take drastic action if you don't have the evidence to support your drastic action.

Am I correct that this is one big ball of wax, really related to the absence of scientific data? Am I understanding correctly, or am I just--

[Rachel Plotkin]

One of the conundrums of the safety net is that it is a discretionary tool. So the minister must invoke the safety net if the minister is of the opinion that a species is in peril or that its habitat is not being effectively protected. Again, under all of this, science for some species is going to be difficult, and there are other instances where there might be science. Any time the safety net would be invoked, it would be because there is a clear case that the species' numbers are very low and it might face imminent extirpation, or because the habitat is not being effectively protected.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Are you aware of any cases that are so clear-cut that in your opinion the safety net provisions should have been invoked?

[Sarah Wren]

It's not a consensus position of SARAC, but certainly there have been instances where various groups have brought forward examples. One example is the tiny cryptanthe, which is a small plant that is found in grassland habitats in Alberta and Saskatchewan. A request was made that the safety net provision be applied because various groups were of the opinion that the laws of Alberta did not protect the tiny cryptanthe, which is quite an endangered plant and in fact has been quite threatened, for example, by residential development in Medicine Hat. However, no action was taken on the tiny cryptanthe in terms of the--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

And it was pretty clear that something needed to be done scientifically?

[Sarah Wren]

Yes, there aren't very many of the plants. Some of their habitat was being bulldozed to put in a subdivision.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So I guess the government would have invoked socio-economic considerations. It is allowed to do that, of course, as I think Mr. Bigras mentioned.

In other words, what was the response you got from the government to your request?

[Sarah Wren]

The groups that were involved didn't receive a detailed response, but our understanding was that the federal government was attempting to work with the Government of Alberta to make sure they recognize their responsibilities under the national accord for the protection of species at risk.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Did anything come of that consultation? That seems to be the default answer of governments, that they can't act but they'll consult with each other, and then it sort of gets lost.

Last week, or two weeks ago, the Commissioner of the Environment issued a report in which he said DFO really lacks proper baseline data on fish habitat, for example. Would that be a factor in terms of the future effectiveness of the Species at Risk Act? Is that an impediment to determining which fish species should be protected? Is that part of the larger equation you're talking about today?

[Rachel Plotkin]

I think one really excellent piece of that information was provided by the last witness before the committee, Dr. Jeff Hutchings. His evidence describes a number of species that have declined by more than 80% since the 1960s. So again, for some species we have plenty of data.

If you look at these species, it's really an interesting example. These are species that are, basically, critically imperiled for the most part. The Peary caribou is not yet listed. It's a mammal that has declined by more than 80%. There was an emergency order petitioned to the then federal minister to help protect the spotted owl, which has declined by more than 80%. It was not acted upon. The greater sage grouse has declined by more than 80%, but its critical habitat—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What answer did you get in terms of the request to protect the spotted owl? What was the answer there?

[Rachel Plotkin]

The response we got was that the minister was not of the opinion that the spotted owl faced an imminent threat to its survival.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

I just need a clarification on that. That request was put in by SARAC?

[Rachel Plotkin]

No.