Environment Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Cynthia Wright]

I'd have to get you the numbers, because the science is also giving broader guidance on recovery. It's not just critical habitat; there are other things, like reintroduction. We spend a fair bit of money on captive breeding, on whether we can reintroduce species. So I'd have to get a breakdown of that detail for you.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Is it less than the $2 million?

[Cynthia Wright]

The $2 million is only on the assessments. If I understand the member correctly, he's getting beyond the assessments into the recovery strategy. So it's significantly more than that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Am I right that 84% of the species at risk are declining primarily because of habitat loss and degradation?

[Cynthia Wright]

I'm not sure it's as high as 84%. I don't know that number.

The COSEWIC assessments often identify the threats. Habitat is frequently at threat; it's not the only threat. There's pollution, over-harvesting, climate change, and a number of other threats.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Wong, can you comment on how well you are doing with ecological integrity buffering and connecting our national park system? We can commit to setting aside a quarter of Canada's land mass, but if these things aren't connected and buffered properly for species, particularly predatory ones, is it going to work?

[Mike Wong]

One of the key programs we instituted, following the ecological integrity panel, was a nationwide monitoring and reporting system. This is the science-based system that will tell us how well we are doing. We completed that task for all our southern national parks this year, and we are challenged by some of the logistic issues of implementing this monitoring program in many of our northern parks because of their size and isolation.

Time will tell, and this monitoring system will be able to determine and answer the question you posed to us on whether we are improving and maintaining the ecological integrity of all our national parks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to have a better understanding of habitat and critical habitat. There is something I would like to understand about polar bears—not to dwell on this subject too much. Given that we know there has been a significant reduction in sea ice, what impact does this have on the habitat of the polar bear? Do you have a report that would explain why this species was placed on a list of species of special concern, rather than a list of threatened species?

Is sea ice not the habitat of the polar bear? Is it a critical habitat? Can you clarify, please?

[Cynthia Wright]

I have a couple of points on that, if I may. COSEWIC did an intensive report and it's available on their website. Yes, they considered sea ice. They considered the importance of the annual sea ice, which will continue to form as long as the earth continues to rotate around the sun. So that's an important consideration.

Yes, they were concerned about the long-term implications of the loss of permanent sea ice, and they said that would have an impact over three generations.

For all of those reasons the independent science panel—not Environment Canada—has come with the assessment of special concerns.

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

I understand that in determining whether a species is threatened or whether it is of special concern or otherwise, consideration is given to anthropic issues, those having to do with human activity.

Is the issue of climate change part of the analysis in classifying species? Is it considered, or are only human activities or very specific projects considered?

[Cynthia Wright]

COSEWIC did consider climate change and other activities in its assessment. They have a fairly rigorous criteria for determining what status they'll give to a species--special concern, versus threatened or endangered. And I'm sure Dr. Hutchings will be happy to explain that to you in detail when he comes.

So they were concerned about the long-term implications of climate change, and that was acknowledged by all parties that participated in the polar bear round table in January.

One other factor I should make sure members understand is the critical habitat requirement to designate critical habitat only comes with those species that are threatened and endangered. It's not a requirement under the act for those that are of special concern. But there are a number of parks, and the government announced last fall the identification of some new national wildlife areas that will include habitat for polar bear.

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

Have you had some discussions regarding the polar bear with the American government in the context of a North American partnership designed to better harmonize north-south environmental policy—that is the policy of Canada and the United States?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, the previous Minister of the Environment, Minister Baird, signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation with the United States on how we would share the management of joint populations.

There is also a memorandum of understanding with all range states that have polar bears, signed in 1973. There is a meeting next week, if I'm not mistaken, with the range states in Norway that will include how governments globally can cooperate on the management and protection of polar bears.

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

When was the last example of cooperation or discussion with the American government?

[Cynthia Wright]

There are ongoing working-level discussions. At the ministerial level, it was last May.

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

Were they official?

[Cynthia Wright]

The last official discussions were last May. The work of officials is ongoing. My director general can confirm that for you.

When was the last time you spoke to your U.S. counterpart? Was that yesterday? It was yesterday.

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

I see. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Wright, you replied to a question from Mr. McGuinty—and correct me if I'm wrong—that one of the significant problems in moving ahead on the habitat protection for species is the lack of scientific certainty and the need for more science. Am I correct that you said that?

[Cynthia Wright]

I don't think it's scientific certainty; it's some fundamental understanding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So there are still questions unanswered.

[Cynthia Wright]

There are still questions unanswered on how species use habitat where they are, even.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Something that troubles me in this, and I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination on endangered species law, is I notice that section 38 sets out the process for recovery strategies, and it very clearly states that the minister is bound by the precautionary principle. It states that in preparing a recovery strategy he may not postpone the recovery strategy and action plan for a lack of full scientific certainty. Is it not then true that if there are delays in finalizing these plans and making them legally binding, the reason being lack of full scientific certainty, the minister is violating his own law?