Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So we're just talking about a specific organization—

[Julie Gelfand]

We're talking about specific groups, a specific subset.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, but not SARAC itself. I see.

Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I certainly appreciate you folks coming and presenting before the committee today as we go through the legislative review of the Species at Risk Act. One of the concerns I have, and I've worked for a while in the environmental law enforcement/conservation field....

I recall one time—and I'm just going to set a preamble for this—I was commissioned by City of Edmonton Parks and Recreation to do a biophysical inventory of the Whitemud River ravine in the city of Edmonton. I laid out ten plots. I hired a botanist, Dr. George Scotter, to go in and conduct an assessment of basically just the biophysical inventory of what was there. They identified some 80 species of plants that were not known to exist—whether it was an orchid or whatever the case might be—inside the city limits of Edmonton, or even inside that particular geographic range. This led me to the conclusion that, given the fact that Canada consists of 32 million people and is the second largest land mass on the planet, there's a lot we don't know. Throw in factors such as climate change, the fact that our climate is evolving, and the natural landscape evolves along with that climate change, and everything we know about the natural range of a species, in my opinion, is a moving target.

When we have those ranges constantly moving and we have an act that basically defines extinction or extirpation within the ranges known in Canada—ranges that are constantly moving—what recommendations do you have that could strengthen the act or make the act more applicable or easy to administer? Your foremost criticism is not of the legislation itself but of the ability of the Department of Environment, whether or not it's through resources. I would also argue that perhaps there just isn't the capability—it doesn't matter how many resources you apply—to constantly try to hit a moving target.

My question to you is, what could be changed in the act? That really is the purview and the terms of reference of what we're trying to do here. The purview of auditors is to assess whether the department is able to live up to its requirements, and I appreciate your feedback on it. That's helpful. But what could we do to the act to make it more achievable, whether it's through a simplification or a clarification of certain provisions? Is there something specific you would like to see changed in the legislation?

[Julie Gelfand]

I'll start. I need to say in advance that we have not talked about this at SARAC, so these will be some general thoughts about what could be done. It's not necessarily a consensus position. Maybe it would be once they hear the ideas.

One is that generally in Canada, if you think about the Geological Survey of Canada, it exists, and we know where all of our minerals are. We do not have a similar biological survey of Canada, which would provide a lot of the information that we are constantly looking for about where species are and where they're moving. That would be a fantastic new thing the Government of Canada could do that would help all of us as we adapt in a new environment, in a new climate.

On the multi-species approach that is being promoted by many ecosystem biologists, I think looking at a suite of species is going to be a way of dealing with the changing--and rapidly changing--ranges and the changing habitat. Looking at ecosystems and at a multi-species approach would be another way of doing it.

Third is taking a precautionary principle approach. So if we're at risk, make sure that we protect in order to be able to possibly have them move. Most of the species will move as the habitat moves. Some species are not going to be able to move as fast. Some species will have nowhere to move to, if you think of the top of a mountain.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

But I think therein lies the crux of my question. Existing ranges known today can trigger an assessment. If we don't know where the biomes are, or whatever term you want to use, if we don't know where that moving target is, then we're simply doing an assessment of modern-day anecdotal or perhaps even scientific counts or surveys of what we deem to be an existing, a previous, or a known range. We're comparing today's facts with yesterday's knowledge. It might not be relevant.

I think this is the difficulty with the act. It's one of the things that I'm trying to figure out for myself in order to make any recommendation. I appreciate your help. How do we compare today's information to yesterday's known information and make an assessment as to whether or not a species, and particularly the genetic biodiversity of that species, is at risk?

I think it's like throwing a dart from 100 feet away at a moving balloon. It's a tough thing to do, but I would appreciate any further input from any of the panellists here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'd ask for a quick response, since Mr. Calkins' time has expired.

[Sarah Wren]

The quick response might be in terms of the cycle that a species goes through. Certainly, as you've heard from Dr. Hutchings, COSEWIC has to reassess its species every 10 years or earlier if information warrants. Within SARA, there can be changes to recovery strategies or action plans as new information arises.

I think it's important to make sure we have the necessary capacity to get the baseline information now and to not just sit back after we've done that, but continue to work to refine, improve, and recalculate as often as we need to for a species whose future is in question, and to use the tools under the act to revisit things.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Ms. Beaudin. You have five minutes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I will give my time to Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to the action plans and recovery plans.

In your brief, you say that the resources needed to set up these recovery programs are clearly inadequate. Like Mr. Scarpaleggia, I would like to refer to the environment commissioner's report. I reread the March 2008 report, in which the commissioner notes that the “...Canadian Biodiversity Strategy clearly indicates that comprehensive and reliable inventories are a fundamental requirement for the conservation of biodiversity....” He goes on to say that “there is no comprehensive inventory of species at risk to provide the baseline information needed for the development of science-based recovery strategies and action plans”.

Does the lack of a comprehensive and reliable inventory, just like the lack of resources, largely explain why there are no appropriate and effective recovery plans and action plans?

[Julie Gelfand]

The two are related. There is not enough information because there are not enough resources allocated to the file.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

After asking officials questions about the inventory, the commissioner indicated that:

Department officials told us that with the passage of the Species at Risk Act, which came into full force in 2004, it is not appropriate for Environment Canada to apply resources to a comprehensive inventory for all the species for which it now has accountabilities.

Do you think that, because we have the Species at Risk Act, which came into force in 2004, there is no need to allocate resources to this area?

[Julie Gelfand]

I think we would all agree that it is very important to allocate resources to the entire species protection cycle. We need basic data, data on socio-economic implications and habitats. And we need to focus resources on the Canada-wide biological database to help species currently at risk and to keep other species from being at risk later.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

As soon as a critical habitat is designated in a plan, what obligations does the government have?

[Rachel Plotkin]

The obligations of the federal government are to protect critical habitat within federal jurisdiction and invoke the safety net if the minister is of the opinion that the critical habitat is not being effectively protected outside its jurisdiction.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

What does that mean? I understand what you just said. It is the principle. The government has to take the necessary measures. That is what you are saying.

What are those measures, those obligations? We take all the measures necessary, and we are all responsible, but that does not tell us what we have to do. What are the obligations as duly set out?

[Rachel Plotkin]

There is an order under the act. I think the government's first step would be to work with the province to see if a collaborative agreement could be reached wherein the province would make a commitment to sufficiently change its measures of protections and effectively protect the habitat. If not, the federal government has the jurisdiction to apply measures to effectively protect the habitat over top of cooperation of the province.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Braid, the floor is yours.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for their attendance today and their presentations.

I'll start at a very high level. On the membership of SARAC, it seems to me it is quite representative and inclusive. Do you agree? Do you have any thoughts or recommendations on the membership of SARAC? Is there anyone missing?

[Julie Gelfand]

SARAC reviews its membership on a periodic basis. It has just gone through that review. At least one member on this list has stepped down. There are two new ones. I believe the Canadian Hydropower Association will be joining. Ducks Unlimited has decided to leave. And the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society will be joining.

That's something SARAC does as an operating committee. It reviews its membership. It also receives requests from associations and groups, and then we look at those requests. There's a process the government has set out to accept or not accept a new group.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It sounds as if that's an ongoing process.

[Julie Gelfand]

Yes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Moving on to the recovery strategy process and recovery strategy teams, it sounds as if there's a fair bit of opportunity for improvement with that process.

Mr. McGuinness, in one of your responses I believe you indicated there are a number of models out there that have worked well. Could you please elaborate on those and give us some examples of best practices?