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.