Environment Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

I would fear waiting for a regulatory or legislative change. I think if the government will were there, then the appropriate departments would make it policy to make sure they picked up the phone with Trout Unlimited or the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters or Ducks Unlimited, whatever chunk of geography, as well as native people living in those communities. That those organizations and the native peoples are at the recovery tables is our point. This local knowledge is extremely important to the ultimate recovery of the species.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I agree.

Dr. Whoriskey, I think you hit the nail right on the head, and you certainly got my attention. I'd be interested to see what some of the other witnesses here would think about your comment when you said this act needs a focus. It's tremendously prescriptive in the process of listing a species, yet it's not as prescriptive and it's not as clear in the legislation about what needs to happen in the recovery stage. I'd like you to comment a bit more on that.

From my perspective, I think that when Canadians hear the title “Species at Risk Act”, they're thinking of things like the whooping crane in Alberta, which had a strong recovery far before the Species at Risk Act was ever created. It's a shining example of how these kinds of efforts can happen outside the existence of legislation like this. However, we have this piece of legislation now; we're trying to fine-tune it to make it better. I would be curious to find out if, in your collective opinions, you think we spend too much time and effort listing species rather than making more of a socio-economic decision earlier on in the process so we don't spend as much time listing species but actually identify those species we deem to be most important for recovery and putting the resources from the listing process or other aspects of this legislation into the recovery.

Does anybody want to touch that?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Sorry, I thought your question was directed to Dr. Whoriskey.

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

I'm confused as to who the question is directed to.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I agreed with your point and I wanted to find out if the other witnesses here agreed with your point.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Absolutely, sorry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, that's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to go to the five-minute round.

Mr. Trudeau, you have the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

One of the things we heard in the last series of presentations on SARA was from a panel of scientists who were talking about the importance of looking at different juxtapositions and contrasting science versus socio-economic impacts and injecting a level of clarity and transparency and openness in both consultations and in the timelines and reporting of those timelines.

I understand the resistance by Dr. Quinney to a process that hasn't been particularly fruitful as yet. When you see the numbers you brought forward, it's very compelling. But one of the things we have heard is that now we're five years in, we're much further along, and there's going to be an increase in the numbers of action plans and recovery strategies. It took that long to get going.

My question is more specific than that. When you talk about the efforts that organizations such as yours, comprised of active, engaged individuals who care very much on a personal and on a recreational level for the natural spaces and the wildlife that inhabit them and their actions toward preserving that, how is that in theory in contradiction with having a strong, clear regulatory regime? Or is it really just a question of in practice? Because as you say, if they don't pick up the phone it ends up not being effective as a process.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Thank you.

The latter point I would agree with. The consequence is one of ineffectiveness and certainly inefficiencies when those kinds of contacts and relationships aren't built.

I would say that ultimately our point remains, regardless of the government of the day, that healthy nature, healthy habitats, healthy species must become a priority regardless of the particular day of the year or year of the millennium we are at. Otherwise, unfortunately, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes, and the list will only get longer.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Then I guess my follow-up question, more concretely, is other than better consultations, can you give me an example of actions that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, for example, would be pleased to be engaged in with a more action-oriented, shall we call it, version of SARA that might be brought in?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes, thank you. A short, concrete example: if you review our nine recommendations, among them you will see that we'd appreciate an invitation.... The species has to be appropriate, geographically and from a knowledge base that we have. We'd appreciate an invitation to participate in some of these recovery teams. We think we could actually help the federal government achieve the objective, get those critters healthy again sooner than later.

In addition to that committed volunteerism and maybe some of the associated resourcing that comes with it, we have highly trained staff. And it's not just the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters that can claim that.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

But as we get you involved, can you give me an example? Would you be physically restocking certain lakes and streams if that was asked of you? Would you be going out and putting banners around certain areas that would let your membership know not to hunt there, for example? What kind of concrete action would it be?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes, sir, those are among the types of contributions we could make. I prefaced it by saying it's species specific, it's site specific. Quite frankly, it would depend on what the recovery plan that was finalized called for. Yes, we would want to contribute, as examples, in those ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here. I think we've all found it very interesting.

I think back to when SARA was being proposed and debated. Dr. Quinney, you said in your presentation that you could say “I told you so” when you brought the point that we may be creating a bureaucracy that would take away valuable and limited resources.

When SARA was being debated, some of the concerns raised at that time were that it would create this bureaucracy, that compensation to farmers should be fair, and there were some big concerns about compensation and mens rea, intent. So here we are later, and some of those concerns continue.

We've generally heard, though, that SARA should not be scrapped; it should be retained and improved. Dr. Quinney, you did include recommendations. I'm assuming that along with the recommendations, you're assuming SARA will stay in place and be improved. Is that a proper assumption?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes, sir. Our recommendations do not include throwing it out the window. We have to work with what we have.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes. Good.

I'd like to focus on socio-economic factors. You said, if I understood you correctly, that it should be done at the earliest stage. We've heard from the department that a species is identified through COSEWIC as being at risk. At that point, scientifically it's identified that the numbers are of concern, and it would then go to the minister.

When it's at the early stages, it's totally scientific, there are totally biological numbers. There are no socio-economic factors in that decision. It's just this species could be in trouble. When it goes to the minister and to cabinet, at that time there are socio-economic factors. Then at the latter stage, when critical habitat is identified, again, socio-economic factors are not considered.

Could you elaborate more at what stages you would see—at the beginning stages and the middle stages and the ending stages?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes. We know from experience that those people who may be most directly affected, whether they be farmers, whether they be our native people, whether they be our commercial fishermen, have a lot of intimate, hard-earned knowledge about the habits, behaviours, and habitats of those species, and they can make a valuable contribution at that listing stage for the COSEWIC committee, in our opinion.

Finally, we are part of these ecosystems. These critters, whether they are endangered or not, are going to have to live alongside us in order to succeed. They actually need us. So that would be as succinct, perhaps, as I could put our rationale for incorporating all relevant information and the relevant players at the table, at the outset.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The scientists who we heard prior to your testimony--and I don't know if you've had a chance to review any of those previous testimonies--are not supportive of socio-economic factors being considered, particularly at the early stages. Why would you think that science would not want that included?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

I don't know. Based on the SARA track record so far, I can't speculate. But I do know that the science is evidence-based, and in many cases what SARA is showing is that it takes a long time to produce that evidence to support designation or not a designation. In some cases, the time and the resources can be what can only be described as excessive. What are we to do in the meantime?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Ouellet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Quinney, I nearly fell out of my chair earlier, listening to you speak as a scientist. I must admit that after hearing you blow hot and cold at the same time, I'm not exactly sure what your position on SARA is.

You stated that there should no longer be any need for species at risk legislation in 50 years' time. Given global pollution and climate change, I cannot see that happening. I think we will need this legislation even more in 50 years' time, not less. I thought the initial focus of the act was primarily on biodiversity. The legislation's objective was much broader than merely saving a particular sport fishing species.

You maintain that volunteers can be a tremendous help. I agree, but they can also be worse than the scientists. There was an incident several years ago. Fortunately, SARA had already been in force when this incident occurred three or four years ago. According to scientists, the rare soft-shelled turtles in Missisquoi Bay were threatened with extinction. However, all of the anglers wanted to get eradicate the turtles because they ate fish eggs. Had we let the volunteers have their way, the soft-shell turtle would now be extinct and that would have been a loss for biodiversity.

I've also seen volunteers in La Vérendrye Park remove German carp, an amazing species of fish, and kill them because they supposedly ate pickerel eggs. So then, can we rely on volunteers who are merely go with the trend. Pickerel was a popular species at the time, unlike carp. Today, people might prefer carp because they keep the lakes cleaner.

Can you clarify your position on this controversial, albeit critically important, as I see it, piece of legislation? Bear in mind that SARA was enacted only five years ago.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Yes, sir. Thank you very much for your comments.

I may still be somewhat of an idealist, but from a pragmatic point of view, I agree with you that regardless of the title of a piece of legislation or law, enforcement is required. Enforcement is a good thing. And I agree with you that while most people may have honourable intentions and may want to do what is best for nature in their backyards, there are some who don't and won't, and that's why we need that kind of enforcement, regardless of whether it's called a Species at Risk Act or not.

That does allow me to repeat my request to the federal government that resourcing be restored, for example, to the DFO cuts that have occurred throughout the Great Lakes basin of Ontario, so there can be a comprehensive approach, and we don't have to depend on SARA for the future of healthy fish and wildlife in the country.

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

Would you not agree that SARA is important in terms of protecting species that are not sport fishing or commercially viable species, such as frogs, flies and bugs that are critically important to our ecosystem? You even state in your submission that if there is not enough scientific data, then such species should be protected.

Couldn't we just rely on our observations that small frogs are at risk, instead of waiting for the scientists to warn us that the species is threatened with extinction?