Environment Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, you're right, the act does require us to identify critical habitat. As I said, we are in the process of doing that and have done that for a number of species. This is one of the areas that's proving to be more challenging.

For example, to use one species that Environment Canada has learned a lot about, the piping plover, a bird that nests on the ground and a species that Environment Canada has a lot of expertise in and knowledge of, from studying it for many years, we still doesn't know why that bird nests in one area one year and in a totally different area another year.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My question was specifically about the woodland caribou and the grizzly bear.

[Cynthia Wright]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking more generally. With the woodland caribou, again—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I understand there is a critical plan on the minister's desk and that it's been there since the fall, so I'm wondering what action is happening to implement that so we can have habitat protection.

[Cynthia Wright]

There was a science assessment study to assist in identifying critical habitat. This is an example where Environment Canada had to seek expertise outside of Environment Canada. The minister is reviewing that and is fully intending to make that public as soon as possible.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is it normal for years to pass before action is actually taken when species are listed?

[Cynthia Wright]

It's not years that pass, even in the case of caribou, because there is work that's done through the habitat stewardship program by provinces. Caribou is an example of a species that's primarily managed by provincial jurisdiction. While things are still working through the species at risk process, action is still being taken by the primary managers.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Well, I beg to differ.

I understand that in order for SARA to be properly implemented there are supposed to be clear policies in place and regulations. Regulations would be particularly necessary for enforcement. Can you tell us what the reason is for the delay in finalizing the policy under SARA and the regulations?

[Cynthia Wright]

On the policy, we have a number of practices and procedures, but our experience of the national framework that I referred to in my presentation has assisted us in speaking the same language with the provinces on complementing different pieces of legislation. Environment Canada, with Fisheries and Oceans and Parks Canada, have been working on a set of policies for decision-making under the act. We've consulted with our several advisory committees as well as the provincial jurisdictions. We hope to have those final within the next few months.

The challenge has been when we work on these policies we learn as we go, so we're constantly updating and reconsulting on what we have. We are hoping to release policies that we know, and we will continue to learn and improve within the next several months.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I understand that under the act probably one of the reasons for the delay is trying to maintain friendly federal-provincial relations. There may well be provincial objections to the listing of species and taking action in habitat protection.

I'm advised that there are only two federal-provincial agreements in place. Is that true, and if so, what's happening with the rest of the provinces?

[Cynthia Wright]

There are three bilateral agreements in place with provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Quebec. Most of the rest of them are in the final stages of review before approval.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In the interim, I'm curious to know how much of your budget is actually spent on science, on monitoring the species, and on identifying both aquatic species and land species and which ones are at risk. What percentage of the budget is actually spent on science, as opposed to advisory committees?

[Cynthia Wright]

I would remind people that COSEWIC is the independent body that does the assessment. For a small budget from the government, they actually lever out a lot of capacity, because many of those people are academics, provincial scientists, and government scientists. We don't pay for their salaries. Their budget is just under $2 million to do the scientific assessment process. Over and above that, we have about $7 million or $8 million in Environment Canada on research to support the kinds of activities, and my colleagues will probably speak to their budgets for science as well.

[Mike Wong]

Within Parks Canada we have a budget of $14 million for the Species at Risk Act, for its implementation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is that work undertaken by Parks Canada officials, or is that on a contract basis?

[Mike Wong]

It's a combination of both.

We have hired species at risk scientists who are dispersed among our national parks. As well, we've worked in close partnership with academia in order to target the research in the right areas.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In view of the shortness of time, my final question is this. I've been in touch with a number of environmental organizations over the last 30 years, and a lot of them have expressed frustration that it is only when they file court cases that the federal government actually moves to take action to protect species. Can you advise, given the minister's now apparent love of enforcement, if there is a switch in mentality of the department? Are you now going to be moving to actually take concrete action without awaiting private action?

[Cynthia Wright]

There have been court cases, and we, as well as others, learn from those court cases. And I did speak to the fact that we've had to develop a number of procedures and practices to work under the legislation. Moving from the non-statutory programs to the statutory programs has been a challenge.

Getting the staff trained in the same kinds of procedures and having the tracking in place to know where we're at has been a challenge. As I said, we're making progress on that. Some of the court cases have been around critical habitation identification, and as I pointed out, that's probably been the most scientifically challenging task for us.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Are you not supposed to follow the precautionary principle?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Ms. Duncan.

We're going to Mr. Warawa to wrap us up on the seven-minute round.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to continue on with some questioning that Ms. Duncan started.

Mrs. Wright, in regard to the court cases, does the cost of those court cases come out of the annual budget of approximately $60 million?

[Cynthia Wright]

The cost for the prosecutors does not come out of it, but the cost for the department to prepare for the case and provide the documentation will come out of the budget. It comes from our staff.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Does the increasing number of court cases have an impact on the budget?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, it does have an impact on our workload and our ability to manage our priorities.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I also had a question on the increasing budget and commitment of our government to SARA and to its enforcement, but that was already brought up by Mr. McGuinty. The government is very committed and is showing that by increasing the budget. My questions are on the scoping of the review of SARA. Do we consider, as a committee, a total rewrite of SARA, or do we look at fixing the problems that have been identified to this point?

SARA has been in place since 2003, but it came into full force in 2004. As you pointed out, a lot has been accomplished over the last couple of years. As you're dealing with the different stakeholders, aboriginal groups, the provinces, could you describe some of the known problems with SARA that have been identified by them and by the government that should be fixed to make it more effective and run more efficiently?

Eventually my questioning is going to be on the very prescriptive requirements under SARA that things have to be done and you go from phase to phase to phase. Is it practical? Could you just make some suggestions on what you're hearing from the stakeholders about what needs to be fixed in SARA?