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.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The amendment is defeated. It's back to the main motion. It's circulated. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Warawa.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'd ask for a friendly amendment. After “Dr. Jim O'Connor” I would also like to add “and the Alberta Cancer Board”. I think it would be a good balance to have them both at the same meeting.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Can we discuss the motion before voting? I want to explain why I am going to vote against this motion.
First of all, it sets a strange precedent for this committee, meaning we decide to put other issues even before bills under review. I would remind the government that when Bill C-16 came before committee, the opposition committed to giving the bill priority because we believed that government bills and private bills should take precedence over all other matters. I would also remind the government that it, too, committed to giving priority to Bill C-311 because it believed that private bills should come before other matters.
Therefore, I think this motion sets a dangerous precedent within this committee, by putting other matters ahead of private bills. So if this applies to Bill C-311, I would like it recorded in the blues of this committee so that it will apply to all other matters and all other bills sponsored by the government or even the opposition.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there other comments? Discussion?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Okay. We're going to continue on with our agenda.
We're going to welcome to the table the Species at Risk Advisory Committee, as we continue on in our study of the Species at Risk Act and the statutory review of the legislation. We have joining us, Patrick McGuinness from the Fisheries Council of Canada, Julie Gelfand from the Mining Association of Canada, Rachel Plotkin from the David Suzuki Foundation, and Sarah Wren from Nature Canada.
Welcome all.
Who else do I have here? Lorra Thompson. I guess she's not with them.
Anyway, I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Gelfand, if you can bring your opening comments.
June 2nd, 2009 / 9:15 a.m.
Julie Gelfand Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Thank you.
Thank you very much to the members of the committee for inviting the Species at Risk Advisory Committee to be your first non-governmental comprehensive look at the Species at Risk Act.
I want to first indicate to you that the fact that we've come to a consensus is quite a remarkable achievement. If you look at the back of our brief, it enumerates the groups that have agreed to this brief that we are presenting to you. I would like to draw your attention to it because I think it's quite important that you note which groups there are and the variety of groups.
We have the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Electricity Association, the Association of Petroleum Producers, the Fisheries Council of Canada, the Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
On the environmental side, we have the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Nature Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, World Wildlife Fund, and the Quesnel River Watershed Alliance.
Finally, on the academic side, we have a University of Ottawa professor from the Telfer School of Management.
The important thing for you to understand as we do our presentation is that this is a consensus document. Therefore, we can only take questions on this document and what is in the document. We will all be appearing in front of you, for the most part, as individual organizations. For now we're here as a group presenting our consensus recommendations to you. I think that's just something we need to say up front, which is quite important.
We do consider it, though, a big success that this variety of groups has been able to come together to agree on a set of recommendations. For that reason, we need to stick very closely to our brief, and we will be reading it and trying to shorten it as best we can over the next 10 minutes or so.
So I'll begin.
Thank you for inviting us to give our opinion on the Species at Risk Act. As I already mentioned, our group is made up of industry stakeholders, environmentalists and academics, who have reached a consensus. Therefore, we will answer only questions pertaining to our presentation.
The Species at Risk Advisory Committee (SARAC) provides advice to the Minister of Environment, the Parks Canada Agency, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, especially on the implementation of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
SARA advice is discussed by individual committee members with a view towards collegiality, cooperation and consensus. However, in recognition of the diverse nature of SARAC membership, consensus is not a pre-requisite to providing advice.
Therefore, this brief is representative of discussions that have occurred within SARAC since it was established in 2005. This brief highlights issues that have been discussed at SARAC meetings that members feel are important to bring to your attention even though there may not be consensus on all these issues by all SARAC members. It is important to note that federal employees are not members of SARAC. Our membership is made up solely of industrial groups, environmentalists and academics.
Overall, SARAC is very disappointed with the implementation of the Species at Risk Act. SARAC remains frustrated that key policies and operational guidelines and practices essential to the effective implementation of the act are taking too long to finalize and implement. The process to obtain and use SARAC advice is not being fully utilized by members of the government.
The basic SARA framework is workable. SARAC is of the view that once the act has been reviewed, there may be specific sections that may need to be amended in order to make the act more effective. However, efforts to improve the protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats will also require a focus on improving the implementation of the act. SARAC is strongly of the view that regulatory certainty is in everyone's interest.
SARA appreciates the hard work to date by federal government personnel in implementing the act. SARAC stresses, however, that all interested parties, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, must cooperate, learn and adjust species at risk principles, policies and practices to ensure the ongoing protection and recovery of species at risk, their residences and their critical habitats.
We encourage federal departments to ensure fully effective and appropriate cooperation and consultation with aboriginal organizations, including the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, and in appropriate circumstances, with wildlife management boards on assessment and listing decisions, recovery planning and other matters.
The preamble of the act states that:
the Government of Canada is committed to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to a wildlife species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty.
SARAC believes that the application of this precautionary principle must be applied across the full spectrum of the SARA risk conservation cycle—assessment, listing, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
My colleagues will give the rest of our presentation, so I will pass the floor over to Sarah Wren from Nature Canada.
9:20 a.m.
Sarah Wren Nature Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Thanks, Julie.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for having us.
I'd like to start briefly speaking about assessment challenges. SARAC supports efforts to ensure that COSEWIC receives adequate resources to achieve more vigorous and comprehensive scientific analysis.
I'll move on to listing challenges under the act.
Within SARA, the issue of socio-economic analysis and where it is most applicable must be addressed. SARAC urges Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada Agency to form a joint committee with the objective of developing, finalizing, and publicly posting a consistent framework for the application of socio-economic analysis in SARA. The development of this framework requires consultation with all interested parties.
The entire socio-economic analysis process must be fully transparent. All interested parties must have timely opportunity to participate in the development of socio-economic analysis, regardless of where in the SARA conservation cycle socio-economic analysis—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Ms. Wren, could you just slow down a little bit for our interpreters?
9:25 a.m.
Nature Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I'm sorry.
Moving on to the extended listing process, the Governor in Council must make a decision on whether to list a species within nine months of receiving a COSEWIC assessment. Decisions to list species often require extensive consultations with stakeholders, other jurisdictions, aboriginal peoples, and wildlife management boards. As a policy matter, the federal government has determined that under a normal listing process, GIC receipt of a COSEWIC assessment will begin within three months of posting the response statements on the SARA public registry. Under an extended listing process, GIC receipt occurs once consultations with affected parties have been completed. SARAC has discussed the extended listing process and would like to point out that this process may involve considerable time lags between completion of the COSEWIC assessment and receipt of the assessment by the GIC. While appreciating that in certain situations emergency listing provisions may be applicable, SARAC recognizes that time lags delay efforts to protect and recover species and could in fact jeopardize protection and recovery efforts.
Moving on to protection challenges, under certain circumstances, if the laws of a province or territory do not effectively protect a federally listed species or its residence or critical habitat located within that province or territory, SARA provides the federal government with the authority to take action. This authority is referred to as the federal safety net. SARAC stresses that full, ongoing effective coordination and cooperation across federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions is essential and should be the primary means of fulfilling the purposes of SARA to protect and recover species and their habitats. SARAC recognizes the possible need to apply the safety net provisions by the federal government in a timely manner in cases where provinces or territories are judged not to provide effective protection of a listed species. To date, the safety net provisions have not been implemented.
Within SARAC there are differing views on when the safety net should be applied, but SARAC members agree that this reflects the necessity for further work to expeditiously define “effective protection”. SARA does not define “effective protection”. SARAC believes that SARA should provide clear definition of this term. The federal government should also finalize operational guidelines to assist all interested parties on what providing effective protection entails for provincial and territorial laws and for ensuring effective protection for individual species.
Moving on to incidental effects and permitting, existing normal operational procedures and activities will sometimes result in incidental harm of individuals of the listed species or damage or destruction of their habitat. Under certain conditions, agreements and permits under SARA could authorize the project proponent to carry out activities that would otherwise violate the act if they do not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. The assessment of whether an activity jeopardizes survival or recovery of the species should be based on best available scientific information, including that provided in the recovery strategy, and should be made publicly available.
To date, some parties requiring permits or agreements have attempted to resolve the uncertainty associated with SARA permitting and agreement processes with limited success. SARAC believes that the policies to guide the granting of such incidental effect permits and agreements need to be finalized and need to promote clarity, predictability, and transparency in the process. The lack of comprehensive finalized policies has frustrated permitting and agreement procedures in a number of instances.
SARAC is of the view that several words and phrases vital to the effective implementation of SARA need to be defined in the act or need to have much clearer definitions. These words or phrases include terms such as “critical habitat”, “residence”, “recovery”, and “effective protection”, and associated terms such as “survival”, “damage” and “destroy”. More clarity and certainty will facilitate the practical implementation of these concepts by all interested parties and better protect listed species and their residences and habitats.
SARAC stresses that in the spirit of the precautionary principle, seeking clarity with respect to these terms should not prevent, disrupt, or slow down effective action. SARAC agrees that clear operational guidelines must clearly address and finalize key definitions to ensure consistent understanding by all interested parties and more certain implementation of the act.
Now I would like to pass it over to my colleague Rachel.
9:25 a.m.
Rachel Plotkin David Suzuki Foundation, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members.
I'm going to be talking about recovery planning challenges.
Strict, mandated timelines are imposed for the preparation and posting on the SARA public registry of recovery strategies and management plans for listed species. As of December 31, 2008, completed and posted recovery strategies were required for 278 species at risk. In addition, management plans were due for 56 species of special concern. In total, recovery strategies for 106 species were completed by that date.
The identification and consequent protection of critical habitat are necessary to the recovery and/or survival of most listed species. The purpose of identifying critical habitat is to ensure that human activities are managed in a way that is consistent with maintaining the biological functions of the habitat necessary to ensure the survival or recovery of the species. Effective protection guidelines can be used to define appropriate management activities.
SARA states that “to the extent possible” the identification of critical habitat must be included in all recovery strategies and in all action plans “based on the best available information”. Of the 106 recovery strategies posted to date, critical habitat has been identified for 22 species.
SARAC strongly urges that the federal government dedicate adequate financial and human resources to clear the backlog of incomplete recovery strategies as expeditiously as possible. An effective approach must be developed in concert with interested parties to clear the backlog. This approach should also ensure the timely development of recovery strategies upcoming in the future. The finalization of the numerous policy and operational guidance documents that are being developed in consultation with partners will be instrumental in moving forward on this initiative.
SARAC strongly emphasizes that the composition of recovery strategy teams include both governmental and non-governmental experts. In this regard, SARAC believes that recovery teams would benefit from more proactive and inclusive composition of teams. More focused and consistent mandates for recovery teams are essential.
At times, recovery strategies suffer from disjointed, all-inclusive approaches that seem to have been patched together by several authors. The quality and usefulness of recovery strategies would be improved through independent scientific review and through posting the results of those reviews.
I am now going to talk about action plans.
SARA states that a timeline for the completion of each action plan must be specified in each recovery strategy. Core departments have fallen short of the deadlines specified by the act for the preparation of recovery strategies, thus impeding the completion of action plans. To date, there are very few action plans in development, due in part, it would appear, to the lack of human and financial resources available to complete the recovery strategies and the guidance documents needed for their development.
Finally, I'm going to touch on ecosystem approaches.
Recovery planning efforts to date have focused primarily on individual species approaches. SARAC urges a review of the recovery planning provisions in the act, as well as implementation policies, to allow for the more effective use, in appropriate circumstances, of ecosystem, multi-species, and species assemblages approaches as part of the recovery planning process. To this end, the core departments, in concert with non-government experts, need to finalize and implement uniform working definitions for the terms “ecosystem approach”, “species assemblages approach” and “multi-species approach”.
I'm now going to turn you over to my colleague, Mr. McGuinness.
9:30 a.m.
Patrick McGuinness Fisheries Council of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Thank you very much.
Regarding implementation challenges, federal core departments need to finalize consistent and unambiguous policy documents and operational guidelines to assist in the implementation of SARA across its conservation cycle. However, in addition to these “overarching” policy papers, I want to stress the need for developing and finalizing detailed “second tier” operational guidelines. The lack of these final policies and operational guidelines greatly hinders and confuses efforts to protect and help recover species at risk, their residents and critical habitats.
Notwithstanding financial challenges, SARAC believes increased federal funding is essential to ensure the full and effective delivery of SARA. To assist in implementation and to develop useful learning tools, SARAC urges the core departments, with inputs from interested parties, to establish best practices and case studies regarding the listing process, recovery strategies, and action planning.
Regarding the minister's round table, SARA requires the Minister of the Environment to convene at least every two years a round table of persons interested in matters respecting the protection of wildlife species. The 2006 minister's round table was inclusive and transparent. However, the 2008 minister's round table fell considerably short of the 2006 meeting.
SARAC wants the minister's round table to be inclusive, comprehensive, and transparent. Round table recommendations and ministers' responses should be posted on the SARA registry in a timely manner. SARAC should be invited to help shape the topics, identify witnesses, and participate in the round table.
Thank you very much for your attention. Our crew here is ready for questions.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you very much. We're going to start with our seven-minute round.
Mr. McGuinty.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Bonjour, tout le monde. Thanks for coming here this morning.
It would be very helpful for my perspective if SARAC were able to distill this document down to one page of recommendations. It would be very helpful going forward as we look at SARA in the full review.
Repeatedly throughout the brief there are challenges raised around definitions, clarity of meaning, and words to be expanded. You have it not just on page 5 of your brief when you talk about protection challenges, but under a number of different headings. I assume that a big part of what you're recommending here is that, as legislators, we move to make more precise the understanding of certain terms in the actual act itself. Is that correct?
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay. Could I make a plea to distill this to one page and sort of make it helpful for us? Is that possible?
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
I think we could come up with one page of recommendations quite easily. Are you asking us to come up with the recommended definitions as well?
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
We could bring that back to our committee and see if we think we could provide that to you.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
Absolutely.
9:35 a.m.
Mining Association of Canada, Species at Risk Advisory Committee
It's whether we can get consensus that will be the issue, but we could give it a try.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Well, if you can get consensus, it would help us get consensus.
