Evidence of meeting #14 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was scientific.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

C. Scott Findlay  Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Lance Barrett-Lennard  Head, Cetacean Research Program, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre
Michael Pearson  Registered Professional Biologist, Pearson Ecological, As an Individual
Arne Mooers  Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)
Jeannette Whitton  Associate Professor, Botany, University of British Columbia, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Okay.

So in two case studies here, we see clearly that this nexus between science and so-called policy decision-making is not working; this overlap, this crossover, is not working. As scientists, you're here to make a plea, I guess, that the essential reform to SARA should be that we have a much clearer distinction between where the beginning, the middle, and the end of science are, and where other questions are applied to the overall decision-making, such as socio-economic, policy, and other considerations.

Is that right? You want to see a clearer delineation or demarcation in the framework to make sure that there is a more robust respect for science.

Dr. Mooers, you actually say in your brief, “Such a separation of scientific input from government response mitigates against conflict of interest...”. What do you mean?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

What does “conflict of interest” mean or...?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Yes. What do you mean by that conflict of interest?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

Obviously we all know what conflict of interest is, but specifically in regard to this situation, if you are sitting in a ministry that has many jobs to do, there may be a conflict of interest when you're asked to do something related to SARA if it may have an effect on some of your other responsibilities.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Do any of you know whether there have been other case studies that have predated these and that gave you the same kind of concern about the relationship between scientific evidence and findings and the overlay of--your grey boxes here--policy considerations and decisions? Is this something that's been happening since the act was brought into force?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

One of my colleagues might be able to speak to that. But you have to remember that it was 2002 and 2003 when the act came in, and there are these timelines, so these are some of the first ones that were coming through. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Could you describe them as natural and normal growing pains, then, with a regime that needs to be improved, or is there something we're missing here?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. C. Scott Findlay

Perhaps I can address that issue. The issue of the demarcation between science and policy, or science and implementation, is a pervasive issue, and it's not unique, by any stretch of the imagination, to the SARA case.

You see this, for example, in the context of chemicals assessment in the CEPA context. You have on the one hand the more scientific notionally component, which is the risk assessment, and then you have the less notionally component, which is the risk management, and under CEPA, under the chemicals management plan, that is very clearly, in principle, demarcated.

I think that in response to your question on whether these are normal growing pains, I'd respond yes. As I said in my introductory comments, we're engaged in an experiment here, and we should not expect to get it right at the outset. I think that would be unrealistic and verging on the unreasonable.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

It's a work in progress.

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. C. Scott Findlay

It's absolutely a work in progress and our task is to improve that work.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Can I ask you--and maybe the whole panel can respond, if you wish, or whoever wants to--how independent should scientific bodies be?

For example, Dr. Mooers, I think you said you recommended an independent scientific body to scientifically review SARA recovery strategies and action plans. Would this be an improvement over existing oversight, for example, for recovery planning?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

That is correct. That would be an improvement over existing oversight, yes.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

How independent should “independent” be?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

I don't understand; you're either independent or you're not. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by “how independent”.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Should it be all third party science expertise? Should it be all at arm's length? Should it be all science from the departments or should it not?

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

I see. I think you could look at COSEWIC as an example. It's not who you work for, it's who you represent, so a lot of the scientists can be DFO scientists or Environment Canada scientists or provincial scientists--it's what they're doing when they're there.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Bigras, you have seven minutes, please.

May 4th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for their presentations.

First, I found your presentations troubling. It seems to me that, within a framework of healthy environmental governance, we need to have as much scientific independence as possible, particularly in the decision-making process. That is how I would summarize your four presentations.

Second, another thing struck me, particularly as regards critical habitat. I may have seen the numbers before, but the ones we presented caught my attention. As for the species on the list, Mr. Findlay, you said that only 19% of recovery programs designate critical habitat, and that the remaining species are basically already on protected territory. We can only conclude that the concept of critical habitat is far from being applied as set out in law, and that economic considerations seem to have priority. I would like to know what you think about this.

We knew this is the way things were at the beginning of the process. That is what is dangerous, in my view. I understand that it is important to ultimately take science into account. Thank you for having shown us this diagram, which assesses the situation based on the registration process. However, don't you think that, generally speaking, socio-economic considerations have gained the upper hand?

4:15 p.m.

Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. C. Scott Findlay

Thank you for the question. I think there are a couple of issues there.

I think all of us here would agree that, in keeping with the spirit of SARA, the identification of critical habitat ought to be based on biological criteria. In the analysis that Stewart and I have done over the last several years, and which I presented in my brief, the disinclination thus far to do so for a relatively small proportion of the species, which in principle, at least, under the act could have had critical habitat identified and recovery strategies but did not, suggests that there are these socio-economic issues percolating into that decision.

I would suggest that this is probably not in keeping with the spirit of the act. Critical habitat identification, at the very least, should be based on biological criteria.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Fine.

You said that scientific considerations are indeed taken into account, but mostly only during the first stage, that is, when a situation is assessed. However, with each successive stage, science seems to be taken into account to a lesser degree.

Under sections 41 and 49 of the act, which deal with the recovery plan and the action plan respectively, do you believe that there should be more independent scientific monitoring, not only during the assessment stage, but also when the recovery plans are being developed? In other words, scientific monitoring and advice must not only happen at the assessment stage, but also when the recovery plans are being developed.

The danger is that, ultimately, when the recovery plan is implemented, only economic considerations will prevail. Do you believe that sections 41 and 49 of the act should be amended to ensure independent scientific monitoring?

4:15 p.m.

Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)

Dr. Arne Mooers

I can't speak to those two paragraphs specifically, but I think, at the minimum, there has to be a separation.

I'm not sure what the direct translation of “supervision” is. I don't think any scientist wants to make a call about what society will do and how much they should pay to do it, but there has to be the clear separation so that nobody pretends they're doing something that they're not. Maybe I don't quite understand the question, but that's at a minimum.

If that's what you mean by supervision, then I would agree, but if you mean more than that, then I think we would have to have a longer discussion.

Someone else might want to comment.

4:15 p.m.

Head, Cetacean Research Program, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre

Dr. Lance Barrett-Lennard

I think I'd take the question a little bit more at face value. Particularly as far as section 41 is concerned, dealing with recovery strategies, it would be very helpful for somebody with experience on the ground, working on recovery strategies, to have explicit language in there about scientific input. In fact, that scientific input is perhaps what you mean by supervision being the primary focus.

That section is confusing because it says the minister must prepare this recovery strategy in cooperation with a number of groups, including stakeholders, aboriginal groups, and so on. It doesn't specifically mention scientific expertise. In actual fact, generally speaking, certainly in the strategies that I'm familiar with, scientific expertise or scientific experts have been part of the process. They've been consulted.

But there is considerable confusion, really, particularly about what should be done with stakeholder input at that level. If a stakeholder comes to a recovery strategy deliberation and says that the actions, or at least a set of methodologies to protect this species, are going to hurt his or her livelihood, we, as recovery team members, don't have clear instruction about whether we should include that in the strategy or not. I think this group is saying that it's appropriate to address those sorts of things in the plan, but not in the strategy.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Pearson, in your brief, you suggest that we should increase the number of conservation agreements as a way to bring land owners on board. However, in reality, no such conservation agreement has been signed until now. Since that's the case, how can we actually reach such agreements? What obstacles have stood in the way of signing these agreements? How can we establish a process, a partnership or a contract?

I suppose all this is part of what you are proposing, including when you refer to recovery plans. You would like these plans to be based on science, I believe. However, when the time comes to draw up an action plan, you believe that there should also be a contract. How can we ensure that many such conservation agreements are actually signed?

4:20 p.m.

Registered Professional Biologist, Pearson Ecological, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Pearson

Well, much of that question, or the answer to it, is beyond my expertise. A question on contracts would be better put to a lawyer than myself. As to how, I can only point to the need and, in my experience, the apparent openness of landowners to this kind of thing.

I don't know what specific barriers there are within the bureaucracy or the legislation to doing it. I just know that it's not being done and that it needs to be done.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Merci beaucoup. Votre temps est écoulé.

Ms. Duncan, you're up.