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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.
I'm sorry. Time goes by too quickly.
Welcome, Mr. Paillé. You have five minutes.
May 4th, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Pascal-Pierre Paillé Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you very much.
I would like to ask several short questions, but as is often the case, in the course of a discussion other questions come to mind, so perhaps we will have a discussion which will be longer than expected.
This is a very technical subject. I am simply replacing someone on the committee. I am more interested in the international aspect of this issue. How does Canada stand, with regard to its current standards, as compared to other countries of the G20? Do we have a good image? Is our legislation on a par with that of the other countries, or is Canada doing better? Are we leaders internationally? Is there a country which serves as a model in the area of protection? Perhaps you can enlighten us on these issues.
4:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)
I can't answer the entire question.
Canada was the first major industrialized country to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, in 1992, and SARA flows directly from that. There were island states—the Marshall Islands—and Monaco, very small countries, and then we ratified in 1992, so we took a lead at that time, for whatever reason.
Ours is a very new law. We think there are on the order of 36 such federal statutes around the world now. We have not done a full evaluation of which ones work better or are better or what the differences are. The listing process we have, whereby we have an independent scientific committee that assesses, and then a government decision on whether to list, is better than that of some other jurisdictions because of that clarity or that separation.
After that, I don't know where we stand. I don't know whether anyone else here has a comment.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Pascal-Pierre Paillé Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
That certainly clears things up in my mind.
Further, we know that some species which are protected in Canada, are not protected in the United States. Do both countries really work together, or do they meet regularly to harmonize their respective laws?
4:50 p.m.
Head, Cetacean Research Program, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre
Yes, there are. I think it's fair to say that on almost all Canadian recovery teams, if not all, there are U.S. representatives. This is another advantage of having teams; I like the opportunity to hark back to that point.
There's nothing to stop them from inviting U.S. government members or species experts from the U.S.—in fact it's encouraged, really, in an operational sense—to join Canadian recovery teams to help develop recovery strategies. The same sort of cooperation exists the other way.
For example, I serve on a U.S. recovery team, an Alaskan sea otter recovery team, at this point. So yes, there are at least some attempts being made to harmonize these initiatives between the two countries.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Pascal-Pierre Paillé Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
I have a final question, and you will have to decide how you will answer.
As far as your work is concerned, what major change do you think would really bring about significant change? This might be a very general question, but I know that many things could be improved or changed. So, if you could make one issue a priority in your area, in your work, what would that be?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)
How many paragraphs do you get to change?
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Scientific Committee on Species at Risk (SCOSAR)
It's a work in progress.
I'm going to pass.
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think that the view of the scientific community.... I would say there are two things. The first thing is that when you put together this type of experiment, you need to be clear about where particular elements fit in.
In my view, and I think this is shared by a number of my colleagues, a bunch of things are being conflated or brought together in SARA, so it's is difficult to know exactly what is going on. I think first and foremost we need more clarity about particular steps in the process.
The second thing, which is potentially as important and maybe even more important, has to do with the question of values. I want to return to this, because this is hugely important.
SARA's purpose is to protect species at risk. We as a society have identified in that purpose that we value species at risk. That's not a scientific decision. It's a social and societal decision.
What science can do and what we around this table can do is say: if you as a society have decided that you value species at risk, we can give our best shot at telling you what we think you need to do in order to protect them and recover them; that's our job. If in the final analysis you decide that there are other values that are more important than species at risk, then that's a social and societal decision. All we would ask as scientists is that it be clear what the decision actually is.
The case in which we get very irritated is where we find that there are issues that have to do with science and the way science is portrayed that tend to be folded into value issues. We would like those two things to be made abundantly clear. That speaks to the transparency issue.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Dr. Findlay, further to that, you stated in your opening remarks that the identification of critical habitat should primarily be biological in nature—this is an extension of what you just talked about—and you said that there were socio-economic decisions creeping in.
Could you elaborate on that briefly?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Especially under the two court decisions that have been rendered—this was failure to identify critical habitat in both cases—the finding was that it was not in keeping with the spirit of SARA that those kinds of considerations were creeping into the ministerial decision--ultimately, the ministerial decision not to identify critical habitat at the recovery stage.
It's my position that the identification of critical habitat is a scientific issue. The scientific community has asked: given that we want to recover this species, what do we need in terms of critical habitat? That determination is done, to the extent that we can do it, with the best available knowledge. Then the decision about whether or not you proceed in an action plan to do hat gets back to the issue of social values.
But I think it's pretty clear that the spirit of SARA is that the identification of critical habitat is a job for science.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
For sure. At some point, socio-economic concerns have to be considered, though. We as politicians.... You've stated that here in your recent statements.
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Absolutely.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
If it doesn't happen during the designation of critical habitat, at what stage in the process of SARA do you think socio-economic considerations should be looked at?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think perhaps Professor Mooers can speak to that, but I would say given that for any regulatory decision you have to prepare a regulatory impact statement, it's appropriate to have a socio-economic analysis as part of that statement.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Basically what you're saying is that we don't want to put the cart before the horse; we have to first establish the critical habitat and at a later point take a look at the bigger picture.
4:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I guess I would get back to the point I made before, about the clear demarcation between the scientific question to hand, which is the identification of critical habitat, and then the less scientific or non-scientific value-based decision as to whether we are going to proceed to protect it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
Dr. Pearson, returning to compensation again, from your years of experience in this area, how many cases—I'm just trying to get my head around how much this would be—have you encountered in which you would suggest that compensation would be required, for example, to protect the Nooksack dace? How many of these issues of compensation would you have encountered?
5 p.m.
Registered Professional Biologist, Pearson Ecological, As an Individual
Do you mean how many properties? I don't have an exact count of properties.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Registered Professional Biologist, Pearson Ecological, As an Individual
A hundred? That's probably generous.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
So it would be over 50 for sure and that's to protect only one species. So to protect all the species at risk, we could be, in private areas, looking at an immense number of properties or cases.
5 p.m.
Registered Professional Biologist, Pearson Ecological, As an Individual
Well, it's not just one species. If you include all the Nooksack dace, you would probably--I don't know the percentage--capture a third to a half of what was required for Salish sucker. Then there's a whole list of other species SARA listed that use the same habitats. There's tremendous overlap, especially in riparian areas: Pacific water shrews, red-legged frogs...they're all in the same places.