Environment Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Dr. Jeannette Whitton]

Obviously we are suggesting that there be another body created, and that's a little scary because it tends to suggest that things could slow down.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We had representatives of our first peoples here who are looking for additional input at every step of the way, which is, again, another process, more steps in the process. What I'm concerned about is how we get more efficient or how do we get to a place where...?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

In my brief and my notes, we did make the point that it's not efficiency but getting it right that's the most important part, and that a lot of these things are slowed down probably not because of people having to do more work, but because people are sitting on them for other reasons.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate that the goal is to get it right; I'm hearing that from the science community. We're not hearing that from other stakeholders, particularly, who are concerned about the time it's taking.

As time is moving on or dragging on, they're concerned about the survival of species, so efficiency does become a consideration, as does whether we make any potential improvements to get the time moving.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you. I don't know if that was efficient use of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

You're batting cleanup, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to get a point of clarification. I think there might be some confusion at the table between the definition of the agricultural value of land and the commercial saleable value of land. I want to be very clear and I want the record to be very clear.

Are you talking about the agricultural value of land or the commercial resaleable value of land? Because those, I would suggest to you, are widely different numbers.

[Dr. Michael Pearson]

My understanding is that it's the agricultural value.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay.

I agree with your statement, Dr. Pearson, that farmers, for the most part, do want to do their part; they are sound stewards of the land. It's not about a species issue or about a wildlife issue. I think it's just a genuine distrust that most people in rural Canada have when somebody from the government comes knocking on the door.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That aside, I do want to ask a couple of questions. I like certain parts of the act. Certain parts of it frustrate me, as I'm sure they do you.

Just to give you my background, I have a zoology degree. I worked a number of years as a technician for various organizations. I'm not going to profess to be a professional biologist, by any stretch of the imagination, but for me, the definition of “species” is a bit different from what I was used to from a biological sense, in terms of the legal sense in the act. I have some of those kinds of concerns.

In 1991, I was commissioned by the City of Edmonton's parks and recreation branch to do a biophysical inventory of the Whitemud/Blackmud Ravine. In that work, I hired Dr. George Scotter, who was a botanist, to identify plants. I'm a zoologist; I can't identify plants all that well. He identified 88 species of plants that existed in the City of Edmonton's river valley, outside the known geographical range of those particular species of plants.

Section 4 of SARA says, “This Act also applies to sedentary living organisms on or under the continental shelf of Canada outside the exclusive economic zone”. When it defines a “fish”, it talks about “fish, as defined in section 2 of the Fisheries Act,” which is strictly within the exclusive economic zone and the laws that govern the boundaries of Canada's waters.

So we're protecting fish within a zone, we're protecting sedentary species in a broader zone, and in the little bit of experience I've had, we've identified species in the City of Edmonton outside their known geographic range. I would suggest to you that we don't even know what we have in Canada.

So I'm asking you—it's a general question—in the scientific community, how often is it that a new species is defined? How often is it that a new species is found? How often is it that a new species is found extending its range into Canada? How often are these things happening? I think these are critical things to know when deciding legislation that specifically mandates....

Whether it's extirpation, whether it's the geographic range and the definition of species that exist in Canada, how often are we finding new species? How much do we know about the current biophysical inventory of species in Canada?

[Dr. Jeannette Whitton]

There are new species being found in Canada; at exactly what rate, I don't know. It varies a lot by taxonomic group. I don't think we're going to find a whole lot of new mammals, but we find new lichens, new plants, and new insects especially. So it varies by group, it varies by region, and it varies according to the density of taxonomic expertise in particular groups of organisms as well.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

We used to taxonomically or phylogenetically classify, based on phylogeny. Now we're into an area of genomics, and I think this is adding a whole new dimension to the definition of what a “species” actually is. The old definition of “species” that I grew up with or that I went to school with was basically two organisms that could produce fertile offspring.

Is that still the scientific definition of a “species”? That's not what the definition is in the act.

[Dr. Jeannette Whitton]

No. That's right.

There are a variety of some 30 species concepts that are out there to address a variety of different priorities, but the biological species concept that you referred to, the ability to interbreed, is still one that's quite important in the scientific community.

But the act refers to “wildlife species” and it has a very specific definition of “species”, which is as defined in the act. It can include what we would call “biological species”, but it can also refer to specific sets of differentiated populations or units within a species, subspecies, or groups of populations that are in a particular region.

These are decisions that are made...well, I don't want to say they're made at the COSEWIC table, but they're decisions that are discussed intensely in the assessment of species. That's where those judgments are made on the basis of the best available scientific information.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up, Blaine.

Mr. Mooers, you can respond.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I would just make the point that, under the Convention on Biological Diversity that we signed in 1992, we do have to protect species and populations in situ. That's the wording in that convention. That's just appealing to higher authority, but it's there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. That ends our second round.

I have a couple of questions, because I do want to adjourn so that we can save some time to talk about our agenda for next week.

Dr. Mooers, in the last flow chart in your brief, you talked about separating out government action and independent science. Are you suggesting here that the socio-economic analysis be done by science?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

The socio-economic analysis is done by social scientists, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's done by social scientists, but you're not suggesting biological scientists.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

God forbid, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

Dr. Pearson, I am a landowner myself and involved in agriculture, so I appreciate your comments. I have always believed that we're a bit further ahead to use a carrot rather than a stick in getting participation in the conservation movement by landowners.

As you said, farmers have always been proud to be stewards of the land. They take great pride in making sure they protect the species that they get to enjoy every day on their farms.

I would suggest that the program they have running down in the States, CREP, isn't quite the exact model we want to adapt here in Canada, because I believe there needs to be more of a joint management of those lands, whereas what they're doing in the States essentially becomes “hands off”. It even becomes hands off from a biologist's standpoint.

I hear from scientists in Minnesota and North Dakota, where there are a lot of CREP lands, and essentially those lands become biological deserts. They actually become at risk because they're not utilized in any way, shape, or form. They're left to go completely wild without any utilization of the grass species.

In riparian zones, that can become a problem in itself. Because there is no competition on those grass species, undesirable species start to exist, which could essentially cause more soil erosion and have more waste products--nutrient values that are harvested and removed from the site. They get into the waterways and add nutrients, which causes greater difficulty with species recovery.

There needs to be a balance, and I think, as you said, some compensation needs to be identified. I know that a number of farm organizations have been talking for quite some time about how we go about that. So any ideas that you see working on the Canadian side versus the United States side would be worthwhile.

[Dr. Michael Pearson]

What I've seen on the United States side isn't quite like that either, in that they have forged partnerships with Whatcom Conservation District and with non-profit NGOs. In fact, those lands that are taken out of production are promptly reforested and planted. Some of them have been there up to 10 years now, and they are far from biological deserts; they are thriving with native species and doing a good job of protecting the habitat next to them.

I would certainly agree with you that it should be a broad approach involving other people and groups that bring other things to the table, such as NGOs, producers' associations, or whatever. I'm sure it's not an exact model we want to follow, but I'm also fairly convinced that there are some things we can learn from it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to thank all our witnesses today for bringing their scientific and practical experience to the committee and suggesting changes to the Species at Risk Act. We're going to take that information into careful consideration, of course, as we start our deliberations on our study and finalize a report over the next few weeks.

With that, I'm going to ask for a motion to suspend, and I'll ask all witnesses and anyone in the room who's not tied to a member of Parliament to please vacate as quickly as possible so that we can have a quick in camera discussion.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]