Environment Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Gary Birch]

That was the example I used, spawning grounds and early life stage habitat. We see critical habitat as those habitats that are absolutely essential for the maintenance of the species.

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

If I may interrupt you, because I don't have much time, I'm trying to get my point in. When it came to the woodland caribou habitat, that was backed up by science, wasn't it?

[Journey Paulus]

Yes, there were 18 species experts who worked for a number of years on critical habitat. So I would say there was a thorough peer review.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you. Time has run over.

We'll move along to Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin my comments by addressing why it is that I think this is such an interesting and difficult issue. My thoughts were triggered by something that Mr. Trudeau had to say earlier, and I regret that I didn't note it down word for word. I think it's useful for us to have regard to the preamble of the act, because in fact the act itself does not set up a contradiction between the preservation of wildlife and the necessity to take into account the cost factors of doing so.

The act itself, in the preamble at least, strives to achieve the kind of balance that Mr. Hyer was talking about. I would specifically like to draw your attention to that part of the preamble that recognizes that community knowledge and interest, including socio-economic interests, should be considered in developing and implementing recovery measures. In addition, the preamble recognizes that there will be circumstances under which the cost of conserving species at risk should be shared. Indeed, elsewhere the preamble refers to cost-effective measures, and it refers to the economic reasons for preserving wildlife. I think the act itself was intended to balance those factors. I thank the witnesses for bringing to our attention the fact that the specific provisions of the act don't necessarily carry through on that.

In particular, my first question is around section 41, regarding a recovery plan and what must be in it. There is indeed nothing in section 41 that is consistent with the terms of the preamble that I read, other than possibly paragraph 41(1)(e), which says that the minister can take into account matters prescribed by regulations. I wonder—and I know this is a lawyer's question—if any of the witnesses can tell me whether there are any regulations that do set out socio-economic or cost considerations to be a necessary consideration in a recovery strategy.

[Journey Paulus]

I think we can easily answer that question. There are no policies, no guidelines, and no regulations under SARA for any issues, including socio-economic considerations.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. That's a concern to me, because it certainly seems inconsistent with the intent of the act that it shouldn't be involved.

I do well understand, Mr. Chair, that COSEWIC is there to deal with only the status of the species, but I would also like to warn the committee that there is no such thing out there as something called “the science” that is going to tell us what to do. Science, first of all, only amounts to the opinions of scientists; and the scientists, we've heard, disagree. Secondly, science is only there to state the facts. It's up to the government to weigh benefits and costs, and we can't escape that obligation by putting it off onto something called “the science”.

My next area of inquiry, if I have the time, is to ask about consultation. In particular, if any of you have a notice that a species was going to be listed as endangered, and consequently the impact of SARA was to come into effect, and you might think that you had science or scientific opinion that said otherwise, can you tell me what sort of process would you be involved in in the consultation and determining of presenting that point of view and in also presenting the socio-economic impact? How long would it take you to gear up the necessary studies and response to such a listing recommendation?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We don't have a whole lot of time, so I do ask that people keep their comments very brief.

[Gary Birch]

I'll try to make it quick.

With the white sturgeon, there was a process where a form was sent out to industry, local NGOs, and local communities. Then there were open houses. It was a very short-term thing, and my recollection is that there was about a two-week turnaround, which was obviously incompatible with doing anything on socio-economics.

BC Hydro at the time felt that there wouldn't be a major effect on the listing, because we operate in that portion of the river under the Columbia River Treaty, which obviously dictates certain terms and conditions for the hydrograph. That doesn't necessarily happen. There are discussions now on how we modify things. The interesting thing is that we now watch the COSEWIC list, because you can tell roughly about a year in advance of when things are going to happen.

We do our own monitoring to make darn sure that we're aware of what's going on well in advance so that we can seek the opportunities to give information to the agencies. It isn't necessarily the other way around.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

I understand, Mr. Bigras, you're giving your time to Mr. Ouellet.

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

Yes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

M. Wojczynski, I would like to come back to what you said a while ago about current technologies not being able to prevent some small fish or some species to be caught up in the turbines and to die. Would the Act, if it were passed, be an incentive to continue studying those technologies?

We know that technical studies can allow some species to be saved instead of leaving it up to the good will of people. With an Act, you are forced to do something. Would that not be an incentive to develop new technologies?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Yes, it would be, you're right. We already are doing, and I know other companies do, more research than they would otherwise have been doing once we have an idea that a species that's in the realm of our operation might be at risk.

I guess you can think of the carrot and the stick. I think, realistically speaking, the government doesn't need a stick to make sure individuals and companies do what needs to be done. In the end, what we're suggesting is that having an approach where we work together to meet the objectives of species protection and coming up with the best way of doing that by using something like conservation agreements would deal with both issues, keeping the cost as reasonable as possible while protecting the species.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Turk, you have raised an important issue, stewardship. I do not know if you were referring to what is being done in the field of forestry by SFC, an international organization on forest stewardship, but I do not believe there is a similar organization for endangered species or even for fish.

What were you referring to when you talked of stewardship?

[Eli Turk]

I was referring to section the 11 of SARA dealing will potential agreements in specific situations. At this time, such agreements do not have legal force but the Act allows for them. I believe we should allow for establishing agreements in specific cases, with specific measures.

If that were the case, I believe that protection would be improved because specific situations would be taken into account when projects are considered.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I agree with you but would this Act not be an incentive to do that? If the Act did not exist, I do not believe that you would do that.

[Eli Turk]

I believe that many companies have been asking this question for several years. Many resources have been spent to deal with this matter. Indeed, Mr. Birch referred to some of those situations. Of course, the Act is an incentive but I think you would be mistaken to claim that it is only because of the Act.

Let us consider Hydro-Quebec, Manitoba Hydro or BC Hydro which have some facilities which were built more than a century ago. Steps have been taken but, as you said, we have to try and go farther on the technological side to look for solutions. I can confirm that significant efforts are being made for this.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Turk.

Mr. Miller, you said that the present economic situation is such that this is not a good time to pass such a piece of legislation. However, you operate in the oil and gas industry which seems to be in better shape again. The recent difficulties will have been a brief setback of a few months only.

Oil companies are making lots of money and are in a very good financial position. Therefore, why are you saying that the present economic situation is such that this is not a good time to pass a such a piece of legislation?

[Peter Miller]

What I was speaking about was the use of resources in society. We recognize that the way the act has been interpreted now by the courts and by the department requires every decision-maker to conduct an extensive activity of their own, an investigation. We do not have effective means to collaborate that way, both federally and provincially and within departments. We need to find a way to save public resources on the cost of transacting this business.

Another issue that has come to our attention is the fact that this duplication we see among government departments is placing a very severe burden on first nations, who have a right, a duty, to consult. They're being approached multiple times by different people discharging their statutory duties. It imposes a great burden in terms of resources and in terms of cost.

I'm simply saying that at this time, when we have to reassess the way we do things and the effectiveness of our activities, we have to apply this in the way that SARA is administered. But definitely we agree with the objectives of SARA. We want to make it work more effectively and in a way that is more collaborative and more forward-thinking, with more planning as opposed to the concern of enforcement, the concern of what might go wrong.

You mentioned incentives under the act. The real issue is that companies wish to undertake activities that encourage species to flourish in proximity to their activities, but if you do that and you increase the risk of incidental harm and punitive consequences of enforcement, that's the disincentive. If you take that disincentive away, there's much incentive to work with communities, to work with first nations, and to work with stakeholders to create good habitat, a good environment for species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci, monsieur Ouellet.

Mr. Calkins, you have the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to pose some questions to our panel here today. The first line of questions I'll go along is for the representatives of the Cattlemen's Association.

When the act was going through its original design, discussions, and debate, there were serious concerns regarding what would happen if the identification of species was on private land. From the cattlemen's perspective, are you satisfied with the current language in the act?

I know you have a recommendation here: “That Environment Canada immediately moves to develop appropriate regulations to permit compensation.” If we look at the compensation aspects of the legislation, as cattlemen you're landowners. Are you satisfied? What, if any, are the challenges? Is there any testimony that you can provide to the benefit of this committee of any challenges that have been faced by landowners?

[Lynn Grant]

Currently, because the agricultural industry operates largely on either private land or provincial land and SARA specifically speaks to federal land, we haven't had any direct challenges in that way. Our concern is that we want to get the act right, because we assume that the jurisdiction that falls under the act is going to grow either through federal initiatives or provincial initiatives.

To date, we haven't seen any instances of appropriate compensation or need for compensation, but what we run into is the colonialism aspect of 1,000 years of history of our species, namely, humans. The only cost they factor in is the extraction of the resource, and we haven't learned how to factor in the real cost to the environment of that extraction. That's the compensation we haven't, so far, worked into our thinking. We've built up a deficit in the environment and we don't know how to repay it.

Our concern is that if we do find a species and it becomes at risk not necessarily from anything we're doing here. Many of the species on the prairies, where I come from, are migratory. What does the act do when a species becomes listed not through actions taken here but actions that occur elsewhere, like in a species' wintering ground? How do you deal with that? So far we haven't seen or heard anything to do with that. If it does take a major change in the method of operation of an agricultural organization or business, then we--the bigger “we” as in society and the administrators of this act--have to develop appropriate compensation so that the production of that good to society or that species to society then becomes a revenue stream for the producer of that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You're talking about environmental services provided by the agricultural sector to the benefit of all Canadians. I thank you for that. That is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

I'll move on now to a question for the hydroelectric industry.

In regard to any hydroelectric project, you need an environmental impact assessment, is that correct? Do I understand correctly that that whole process requires permits from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and also from Environment Canada?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Those permits are obviously to address and mitigate foreseeable concerns of environmental impacts that could be obviously damaging to habitat and to all affected species. Is that correct?