Environment Committee on April 27th, 2010

[Éric Hébert-Daly]

Yes, they can.

However, I honestly believe that some scientists are capable of identifying a caribou and determining what it needs to survive. I'm not about to go on the attack and say that federal workers generally cannot tell the difference between a carrot and a cow.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm not being critical. It's just that 25 or 30 years ago, the fathers or grandfathers of the people seated here at this table were farmers. Everyone could identify the different animal species. Today—

[Éric Hébert-Daly]

It's a fact that as a result of urbanization in Canada, more and more, people are out of touch with nature. It's a problem, not only for governments and public servants, but for people in general. I quite agree with you on that score.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

Mr. Ouellet will take over.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have three minutes, Mr. Ouellet.

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

The other day, I saw a magnificent bear just 10 feet from my porch. I know my animals.

My comments are directed to all of you. In your presentations, you called for more conservation agreements. To date, the government has not implemented any such agreements. Why has the government been slow to respond and to implement these agreements? What types of challenges do agreements like this present?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

The first answer I have is that I have no idea.

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

Does anybody have an idea?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

The second answer is that I recognize the budgetary constraints and a lot of process requirements within the SARA machine.

It's a fact that relatively small amounts of money have been secured to implement SARA. There's been a lot of design and process going on. It's probably fair, too, that after five to seven years, the honeymoon is still just coming to an end. SARA is now grown up, and it's logically the time to implement.

That's why I think your work is very timely--to prescribe what the priorities are for implementation. Let's pick a few well-chosen examples, make them work, and see in five years how it's worked.

[Éric Hébert-Daly]

To say that this legislation is now grown up conjures up a nice image. We're not quite sure how it's all going to work out.

However, I believe just as Rachel does that we have reached the peak, that is to say, that we have worked long enough on plans and structural issues to be in a position to do the job as it needs to be done. We should not be thinking about making too many structural changes at this time, because that would be a waste of the time that went into all of the preparations. We have to be careful about casting aside the work we have done, when the goal is to get results.

Again, it comes down to a matter of implementing the provisions. We're managing, but just barely. What we need are more creative approaches.

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

Since I still have a minute left, there is something I would like the representatives of the David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice Canada to explain to me. You state the following in your speaking notes: “Conservation agreements should not be exempted from SARA prohibitions or permitting requirements. Section 11 and section 73 must work together.” What exactly do you mean by that?

[Dr. Keith Ferguson]

I'm happy to take that one.

We have been hearing some suggestions, from others before you, that a conservation agreement should also count as an exemption from the prohibitions in SARA, and our opinion is that it should not. The reason we say it should not is that section 73 of the act, the common permitting section, has some very careful safeguards in there. In particular, subsection 73(3) has three carefully drafted safeguards to make sure the impacts are minimized from a permitted activity, to make sure that all of the reasonable alternatives have been considered, and to make sure there's no jeopardy to the survival or recovery of the species. If those three conditions are met, then a permit can be given out under section 73.

We do not believe a conservation agreement on its own, which wouldn't necessarily ensure all of those safeguards were in place, should also act as an exemption, but we think there should be some investigation by the federal departments into whether or not these two can work together. For example, could one agreement count as both a conservation agreement and an agreement under section 73 that meets those preconditions? I don't know. I think that's something for further study and investigation by the departments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Woodworth, you have the floor.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for being with us today.

I think no matter what view you take of it, it is a challenging subject. As someone jokingly mentioned, we haven't had caribou around here for 200 years, and clearly that's because of the gradual interplay between human and natural environments. So we want to do what we can in an intelligent and thoughtful way to, as Rodney King would have put it, all get along together.

I was impressed by a comment in the World Wildlife Federation's submission, which I will just read back:

Most people involved with SARA have recognized for some time that the single-species approach to recovery is slow and inefficient overall. The well-attended December 2006 Minister’s Roundtable (MRT) on Species At Risk identified the urgent need for a much stronger government lead on a multi-species and ecosystem-based approach to species recovery. The 2006 STRATOS review also made this recommendation (#16), and the government response agreed.

Now, I don't know all there is to know about that, but I happened upon some information regarding the natural areas conservation program, which, as of September 2009, had secured over 136,000 hectares of land protecting habitat for species at risk. That was over 60% of the target for the entire program, and it has been delivered in less than three years. Over the next few years, the program is expected to encompass more than 200,000 hectares of ecologically sensitive land across southern Canada. Another $79.4 million needs to be transferred. It's expected that an additional two, or perhaps three, years will be needed to fully utilize the $225 million, the almost quarter-billion dollars, dedicated to that program.

Am I right in making the connection that the program is a multi-species and ecosystem protection-oriented program?

I'm looking at Mr. Ewins because it's the World Wildlife Federation's submission, but first of all, I should ask you, are you familiar with that program?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Yes, thank you. It was in an earlier version. That's a prime example of creative leveraging. It's a great program, multi-species, habitat-based, securing management regimes for the long-term needs of species.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So I'm taking from those comments that you're supportive of the government's work on that over the last three years, and that you feel it has some positive implications and does meet the 2006 recommendations about securing ecosystems.

The other program I caught in this area is that over the last five years, Parks Canada has invested $22 million in new initiatives to ensure the conservation and protection of Canadian ecosystems, including the diverse plants and animals in places such as the Garry oak ecosystems in southern British Columbia, the Grasslands National Park of Canada in Saskatchewan, the Thousand Islands ecosystem in Ontario, Kejimkujik National Park of Canada in Nova Scotia, and the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site. I'm told that all of those are ecosystem approaches that integrate research, recovery activities, outreach, and education for an integrated approach to species recovery.

Are you also familiar with those programs?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, this is a good start, but this is orders of magnitude less than what SARA requires.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Sure. And I'm not referring you to that in isolation. I also put it together with the almost quarter of a billion dollars in the natural conservancy.

So those are all positive things. I just wanted to make sure--because your report indicated that you felt there was not enough progress--that I was reading it right that at least we have made some....

Can I call it “significant” progress? Would that be correct?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Well, I'm trained as a scientist. No, it's not insignificant--this is a good start--but I think the litmus test of how we're doing is the nature of the COSEWIC list and the regular updates on the status of Canadian species, natural habitats, and ecosystem function. And those clearly, like a medical checkup, are showing you that you have a problem, and you're still not turning it around.

So that's the measure of significance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This authority that we've been talking about, this federal authority to really take leadership on the issue and intervene with the provinces to protect species--where does that authority come from?

For example, in CEPA, the authority of the federal government to regulate or to make laws regarding the emissions of chemicals into the environment comes from a Supreme Court decision in a case called, I believe, the Hydro-Québec case.

Where does the federal authority derive from when it comes to the federal government showing bold leadership in interfering in provincial jurisdiction to protect the species?

[Dr. Keith Ferguson]

Perhaps I could take that one.

The constitutional authority for SARA was very heavily discussed when SARA first passed through Parliament. People as eminent as La Forest, the former Supreme Court justice, provided opinions.

The criminal law power is one of the heads under the Constitution that is considered to provide the federal government with jurisdiction over species at risk across the country.The “national concern” branch, under POGG, is another.

I should mention that I'm not a constitutional expert, but I would refer you to the debates from the last time, where this was thoroughly debated.

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

If the federal government were to exercise this power with respect to, say, the caribou, here's the specific case I have in mind. Caribou behaviour is influenced by things that happen apparently hundreds of miles away.

For example, according to Dr. David Schindler, the caribou are disturbed by SAGD mining activities in the oil sands on provincial land leases. How does the federal government deal with that issue? The caribou could be on federal crown land, yet they're being affected by industrial activity on provincial crown land that is 300 miles away.

If you were to invoke federal authority, which, as you said, flows from a number of sources, how would you use federal authority to solve this problem?

[Dr. Keith Ferguson]

I think the best I could offer there is the Species at Risk Act through the recovery strategy.... In a recovery strategy, we would get the team of scientists together to identify threats such as what you're discussing. They would come up with scientific approaches to dealing with those threats. They would identify the critical habitat that is scientifically necessary. Then we would shift to the next stage, the protection stage, where, hopefully, protection orders would then be put in place to protect that habitat.

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

Going back to what we heard in a previous hearing, we talk a lot about science and the need for science in creating recovery plans and so on. It's all very theoretical, and it all makes sense. But when you speak to federal officials, they say, “Well, you know, it takes a year to hire a biologist.”

Are there resource constraints on implementing SARA? It's fine to say that we need to do an evaluation of this, we need to do a study of that, we need to have a scientific opinion on this--and yet we don't have the capacity to do it all.