Environment Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm going to move on and ask some questions specifically pertaining to the fisheries and aquaculture.

The issue of abalone was brought up. If we take a look at the way the law is structured, we cannot take an animal or species that's been classified under the Species at Risk Act and use it for aquaculture, for harvesting, or for commercial purposes. Is that true?

[Pardeep Ahluwalia]

Unfortunately, it's not quite as clear as that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's where I'm going with this. If we take a look at the act, Atlantic salmon in the Bay of Fundy are considered endangered, or extirpated, or whatever they're classified as, yet we seem to have no trouble at all farming Atlantic salmon.

The question I have here becomes one of speciation. We have things that are listed not because of a species being at risk, but because the species is gone from what we know to be a traditional area where that species once existed. That's a habitat issue more than it is species at risk, because a species might be abundant in another part of its normal geographic range.

Also, for example, if you take a look at the peregrine falcon, we have things listed by subspecies and not actually by species. At the species level we may have an abundance of peregrine falcons, but if you take a look at the tundra subspecies of the peregrine falcon, that one is listed.

When we take a look at the abalone, we can look at it from the perspective that there is definitely aquaculture commercial value to it. If we were to actually have a mechanism in place to allow the abalone to be raised in an aquaculture perspective, it might actually reduce the poaching and the illegal harvesting of this listed species.

Where could the act use some improvement when it comes to sorting out some of these issues?

[Pardeep Ahluwalia]

If I may, you've raised some very interesting and challenging questions for us.

With the abalone, the act does allow for us to take individuals of a species if it's for scientific purposes and doesn't jeopardize recovery of the species. We do have the ability to take species from their natural environment if it's to help recover the species. That's what has happened with the abalone example on the west coast, in that there is a commercial operation that is raising abalone. It's a first nations organization. The rationale is that the first nation is concerned with recovery. If my memory serves correctly, half of the population they raise is intended to go back into the wild to help recover the species.

The challenge is on the aquaculture side of the operation, which is intended to help provide the funding, or at least a portion of the funding, for the recovery side of the operation. We do have a mechanism in place to allow that trade to happen under a fairly onerous set of permits and handling requirements, but it's certainly not an easy path to follow for recovery of a species. The same applies for the certain others that are starting to be looked at.

It is an area that we do find challenging. I don't think we have an easy solution to this one, but it is one that may warrant some consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have five minutes, Mr. Bigras.

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

I have a question that follows up on the one asked by Ms. Duncan regarding the bilateral agreements you have signed with the provinces. I would like to come back to this issue, since this is the first meeting on this issue, so that we can refresh our memories regarding federal-provincial cooperation. You reminded us that three bilateral agreements had been signed with three provinces, including Quebec. Please start by reminding us what these agreements are about. I think it is important to do this.

[Cynthia Wright]

The bilateral agreements, as I said, are meant to give the federal and provincial governments a good understanding of who will do what. They actually end up developing cooperative work plans and, where appropriate, sharing resources to get the job done. As I said, particularly from Environment Canada's perspective, often the knowledge, expertise, and many of the tools to protect a species or recover a species are actually sitting in the hands of a province. The bilateral agreements are meant to facilitate that.

There's a governance committee that develops a work plan. They share priorities on who will look after what species in terms of doing actually the recovery plans and implementation activities. They're also meant to facilitate other actions, such as consideration of species at risk under the environmental assessment procedures of both orders of government.

So they're quite broad. They also spell out consultation--how we'll consult if there's an emergency on the status of a species, that type of thing. They're comprehensive in terms of the whole act.

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

While there is nothing mandatory about it, are the provinces to submit reports to the federal government?

[Cynthia Wright]

The provinces do carry out activities. They often are doing recovery strategies under their own powers and their own authorities. Then they will provide those to Environment Canada. The act allows the environment minister to adopt an existing strategy or action plan. Often the federal government will adopt that provincial strategy.

That's one example of a rapport. As I said, there's work planning in committee. They're regularly communicating their priorities.

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

As I understand it, some provinces have signed agreements with the federal government, and others have not. Do you think that this type of model, involving signing agreements with the provinces, is one that promotes the protection of biodiversity? Do you think it is preferable to have some agreements with the provinces, rather than to have none at all? Is this the model we should be considering in order to protect habitat and species as much as possible as a result of this type of cooperation?

[Cynthia Wright]

We feel that these are essential to the implementation of the accord, the national framework, and the federal Species at Risk Act. That's why we have a high level of effort finalizing bilaterals with all jurisdictions.

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

Have you noticed any differences between provinces that have signed agreements and those that have not signed such agreements with the federal government? Have you seen any differences in the enforcement of the rules on species protection, that would ensure that Canada can meet its 1992 commitment, for example? We should remember that Canada was the first industrialized country to sign the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Does this type of agreement with the provinces help Canada do better internationally?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, we do consider the bilaterals to be key. We've seen, for example, that once we have the bilateral in place, and we have the committee that meets regularly and shares the priorities, shares the workload, we're making significant progress. It has helped build a better understanding among the governments that have signed a bilateral agreement and the federal government in terms of how SARA works, how we implement it. I think there's less uncertainty for the provinces.

Just as an example, the first bilateral signed was with British Columbia. It led to a lot of cooperative action, for instance, on the spotted owl. The experience we had under the first bilateral is what led us to develop that national framework, which gives more clarity and is helping us speed up the finalization of remaining bilateral agreements.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Braid, you're on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the departmental officials this morning. Thank you for your participation.

I wonder if I could just start at a high level. We have approximately 70,000 species in Canada. Of that, about 7,700 are being monitored. I'm just curious about what process or methodology we went through to determine that first 10%, and how they fell into the monitoring category. Are those low-hanging fruit, so to speak?

[Cynthia Wright]

I can speak more to the terrestrial and perhaps Pardeep would like to speak to the aquatic.

A lot has to do with jurisdiction. Environment Canada has jurisdiction for migratory birds. We have a very mature act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and a lot of cooperation in North America and in fact in South America. There is a lot of bird monitoring. Pretty well all the birds are monitored to some degree or other.

In the early days those were birds that were considered more important to society, such as waterfowl, ducks for hunting. That is somewhat similar at the provincial level. The species for which the provincial government is obliged to understand the status so they can set hunting quotas is where monitoring is probably the most stringent and long term.

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

With respect to enforcement specifically, you mentioned either during your presentation or perhaps in answer to a question that the number of enforcement officers has increased. You now have 98, I believe. That was as a result of an increase in budget 2007. What's the additional number of enforcement officers that resulted from that budget increase?

[Cynthia Wright]

It was 38. They almost doubled.

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

That's about a 50% increase.

What authorities do those enforcement officers have?

My follow-up question will be what opportunities for improvement to the legislation might we consider to further augment those authorities?

[Cynthia Wright]

Most of their actions to date have been with respect to the prohibitions under the act for killing, collecting such a species. For instance, there was a case not too long ago when someone was charged successfully under the act for collecting turtles in the wild.

Their authorities will apply to protection of critical habitat. Their authorities, under the Species at Risk Act, are largely focused on those prohibitions, and if a permit is issued that the permit be complied with as well. There are permits for incidental take activities as well; for instance, you're carrying out an activity and you may accidentally harm a species at risk. If that is deemed to not affect the whole population or its recovery, that can be a permanent activity. The enforcement procedures are largely related to those prohibitions as well as the critical habitat prohibitions.

There are also authorities under other pieces of legislation that are used, under the parks authorities, under the Fisheries Act, and Environment Canada under protected areas, etc. There are more than just the species at risk.

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

Right.

As we undergo this legislative review, are there opportunities for improvement in the act to further improve the authorities the enforcement officers have or to give them additional tools so they can do their job more effectively?

[Cynthia Wright]

One thing I should point out to the committee in light of the enforcement bill being tabled last week is because at the time that bill was being drafted and the Species at Risk Act referral to this committee was imminent, there was a decision that we shouldn't amend the Species at Risk Act via the enforcement bill. So the provisions in the enforcement bill that was tabled last week do not include any amendments of the Species at Risk Act. All of those provisions in that enforcement bill could apply to the Species at Risk Act--in other words, the fines, the sentencing instructions, the enforcement tools, including the administrative monetary penalties. Those are absent or only allowed but not required under the Species at Risk Act. So all those in the enforcement bill could have been applied to the Species at Risk Act.

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

Great, thank you very much.

How much more time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I just want to follow up directly on exactly the point Mr. Braid made. First of all, in the collecting of turtles case you mentioned, what were the penalties applied to the individual?