Environment Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

I'm certainly not going to point to Ontario's Endangered Species Act. I'm not going to point to that. But I will point to Ontario's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the relationship that, for example, organizations like mine have with the staff within the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources responsible for overseeing, implementing, and enforcing that act. It has become standard operating procedure for those staff, with the blessings of their managers and ultimately the government. So that's an excellent example I would point to.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That wraps up our second round. We have time for a third round, and I'm going to suggest that, with the amount of time we have left, we do a four-minute round.

Mr. Trudeau, you're on.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

Dr. Whoriskey, in your brief you mention concern for the extended timelines that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is bringing forward as to how long it will take to develop and finalize action plans. To your mind, what's missing? Is it resources? You talk about allocating resources, probably funding and personnel, to the action plan part of SARA. Or is it political will, coordination, or something that simply is going to take time to get right?

I'd like to hear a little bit more from you on what you think we can do to respond more quickly, but also the right way to be able to protect the Atlantic salmon from those rivers.

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

In the case of these inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon, I think the issue is clearly resources. We know the problem is marine survival. Everybody agrees on that. We know what the technologies are to attack it, to find out where the murder site is, and when and where they're going. Once you know where the murder site is, maybe you can identify what the causes are through correlations with environmental variables, the predators there, or something akin to that.

I think that's the fear, that there aren't enough resources in-house within the government to make this happen. So what do you do with that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Specifically, it would be resources to hire scientists to do studies and to go out and do field research.

We're talking about the ocean and a “murder site”, which is obviously more a figurative term than a concrete term, but whatever it is that ends up happening. Are there scientists available for that, if the funding were available, or does it just take a good scientist and a handful of graduate students?

I know I'm getting very specific, but I'm trying to understand some of the concerns around the implementation of action plans and recovery strategies.

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

Highly qualified personnel are available. We can probably cobble together, through partnerships, the equipment necessary to do this. What is missing is the operational funding.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

How much would it take in this specific case—just to get our minds wrapped around it?

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

We're probably talking a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. It would probably have to go on for about ten years.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Is that what you expect would be the conclusion in four years of the further consultations? Is it that kind of result that you would see, four years to develop and finalize action plans? Is that the kind of recommendation that you could see coming out in four years, to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars on it for the next ten years?

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

I am honestly mystified by the consultation procedures, because when you get to the point where everybody seems to agree on what needs to be done and how to do it, it then disappears into government considerations and doesn't come out again, for reasons that are totally unknown. I really don't know what's going on there.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Trudeau.

You have four minutes, Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another question for Mr. Quinney.

You told us today that you consider SARA to a somewhat symbolic piece of legislation. While it may be necessary, at the same time, you also believe that the implementation process leaves much to be desired and that there is a great deal of bureaucracy.

Do you have any members or chapters of your federation in the Great Lakes Basin?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

We sure do. We have a large number of individual members, surrounding the Great Lakes.

If I may just take this opportunity, there are elements of the act, superior to others, that have been underutilized. I point you towards the stewardship components of the act that actually promote the type of volunteerism and community involvement that I've been advocating on behalf of my organization.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you advocate an educational approach when it comes to protecting habitats and species at risk, that is to say, you favour education over a shotgun approach. However, there is one reality that we must contend with at the same time.

Take the Great Lakes Basin, for example. I read somewhere today that industries discharge five million kilograms of pollutants into the Great Lakes Basin.

Are you saying that SARA won't necessarily guarantee us a healthy ecosystem? What about other pieces of legislation, specifically the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

Do you think other acts need to be strengthened? I'm only trying to understand your position. When it comes to species protection, do you believe education is the key? Other acts need to be strengthened, in addition to SARA. Is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to understand your overall position.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes, sir, you're exactly correct. I'll give you a concrete contemporary example right now. What is known as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an international agreement between the United States of America and Canada, is being renegotiated for the first time in more than 25 years. Pollution control has increased. Canadians should be proud of the efforts and improvements that have been made in improving the quality of the water in all the Great Lakes, including the St. Lawrence River, which of course receives all that water eventually. We can't stop there. We can do better. For example, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement addresses pollution as one of its components.

We sure hope the federal government, in renegotiating this Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, takes a full ecosystem approach this time around, as opposed to a narrower water chemistry approach that was followed 25 years ago. That would be the type of recommendation we would give you too, yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much.

First of all, Mr. Quinney, despite my terse comment before on the point I disagreed with, I want to make a comment. I have a lot of respect for the document you brought today and also for your reputation. I didn't get a copy of this report until today, and I'm finding that even though it's fairly short, it's action-packed. To be honest, I couldn't get my head around it today, so I'll probably have follow-up questions later in a different venue.

You mentioned that the OFAH clubs.... Let's just say the OFAH and aboriginal groups and other local and traditional users should have significant input into this, as you suggest. I'm very supportive of your idea that you're more involved. You have a lot of members with a lot of knowledge. They not only have info and knowledge to educate scientists and bureaucrats and politicians and policy-makers and managers, but the opportunity to buy into the process and feel they're involved is important. I will fight hard, if I can, to see that the opportunity for your members and other local and traditional users is enhanced, at least maintained and enhanced, if possible.

Two hours just isn't enough for the wealth of information you're bringing to us today. We need to bring you back for a conference sometime, not just two hours. So I'm not going to ask you a further question, although after the question I'm about to ask, if there's extra time and you want to comment further, I'd welcome it.

I have a specific question for Mr. d'Eça--three, actually. The government has testified previously that the consultations carried out before listings can take longer than nine months, and we heard today more evidence that it can take a long time. Further, they indicated that when an assessed species occurs in Nunavut they follow a special process to engage with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to respect land claims and this process must be complete before a species may be listed. So could you describe the consultation process the government follows before listing a species that occurs in Nunavut, in very brief terms, bullet form?

Secondly, what would be a reasonable timeframe for the government to carry out such consultations, in your opinion?

The third question is do you have any recommendations for how the consultation process can be enhanced, or is it just too prescribed by the process now? Is there room for adaptation and improvement?

[Michael d'Eça]

Thank you for the questions.

On the consultation process the government follows, if you don't have a copy of this MOU we've talked about today between the NWMB and government, the committee should probably get a copy of it, because it is actually a good-news story under SARA. What we've agreed on there is not what takes place in consultations, but how long they will take place.

We have section 37--Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans conducts relevant public consultations in Nunavut, including with relevant Inuit organizations, between November and mid-February. So that's about four and a half months for consultations.

But what actually takes place, which I think is very sensible, depends on the species. Right now the listing of polar bears is before the board. It's a huge issue, as I'm sure you're all aware. There the government did a really tremendous job in its consultations. It went to every single community in Nunavut and had oral face-to-face consultations--the best kind of consultation. It took a number of months. But for wolf-fish, which occur in Nunavut waters, there's nothing like that going on because of prioritizing, and so on. The economic, social, and cultural needs and interests of Inuit are taken into account.

So it really depends upon the species. But the Cadillac version would be what was done recently with polar bears. The NWMB held a three-day public hearing and is expected to make a decision on the listing of the polar bear this June and go to the minister in July. So I expect that some time in the fall there will be a final decision. So within a reasonable timeframe look at the species and take it from there. But certainly under the MOU we think you can generally get everything done within those four and a half months. It may not take that long. You may be very busy for the whole four and a half months.

On how to enhance it, even with what I just said, consultations and communications with the public of Nunavut, primarily Inuit, over the first five or six years of SARA have not been adequate, and there are problems. People are distrustful of the act. They're suspicious when the consultations take place. There really has to be a redoubling of efforts to communicate and consult in an appropriate manner with the public of Nunavut, and I suspect with the aboriginal public right across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

As many of you know, I like to use sport metaphors now and then, such as batting clean-up. I'm going to give Scott the ball to carry, but I'm not going to say I'll pass the ball to shoot the winning basket in the game because he never showed up for the game last night.

Scott, you have the last question.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

It's a good thing. I would probably be too tired to be on this committee today.

Dr. Whoriskey, my question is going to be on a listing. When the Fisheries Council of Canada was here they suggested that we apply the Department of Fisheries decision-making framework to assess whether a fish species was at risk, rather than the criteria of COSEWIC. COSEWIC's assessments are currently based on international criteria and apply to both terrestrial and aquatic species. Which type of criteria, in your opinion, would be better?

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

I prefer the COSEWIC criteria because they are based on the biological ones. This comes back to some of the earlier questions that the committee was discussing.

The COSEWIC process uses the best available science. In other words, you may not have a whole lot of information on certain species, whereas you have nearly complete counts on all the animals for others. COSEWIC's process does not block, because they don't have complete counts everywhere on things. They use whatever the best available information is. If your sampling in a few sites shows alarming declines, they raise the warning bell and try to get the issue addressed more quickly. So I would argue that's an effective and proper way to attack these kinds of issues.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Dr. Quinney, I know you might not have any expertise in that particular area of listing, but do you have any comments from your organization about the current listing process used through SARA? Do you think it's effective?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

We address that briefly in the written presentation, but we'd be happy to provide more detailed comments on that specific topic, absolutely.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Sure.

Mr. d'Eça, I have one last question for you. I know I was picking on you before, I guess.

The government supports initiatives such as lands claims, wildlife co-management boards, and the aboriginal funds for species at risk. That particular organization supported 333 projects, with $10.2 million over the last four years. That benefited over 250 species at risk.

Do you think these initiatives are helping build a collaborative approach between government and aboriginal peoples? Is using that process a good thing that we should continue in the legislation?