Environment Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Sir, I agree with what you've just said, that the protection of the entire ecosystem, the entire food chain, is needed. SARA is part of that, but SARA is the last defence, we say. We say the first defence is before SARA. Make sure the habitats of all those frogs are adequately protected. That's what biodiversity conservation is. Are there adequate federal and provincial policies in place across the country at that first step so we don't have to rely on SARA?

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

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired.

We're going to keep moving along.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today. It's very good for democracy when people take the time to come to inform legislators.

As I have been listening to the evidence, not just today but over the months we've been studying SARA, it occurs to me that SARA really is an attempt to put a square peg in a round hole. In a certain sense, all human activity is fundamentally inconsistent with a completely pristine environment, so what we're attempting to do, and what it's really all about, is finding the right balance. We have 33 million people co-existing with acres of diverse species and we have to find the right balance.

I'd like to tackle something that hasn't been discussed today but is of interest to me, because I have a feeling it's one of the biggest challenges under SARA and I find it referred to in the report on behalf of the NWMB.

Mr. d'Eça, what I'm referring to in your written brief is a reference to the fact that only 16 critical habitats, or 17%, have been identified. First, I want to get the parameters of that. I'm assuming that is a statistic for the whole of Canada, not just for Nunavut. Is that correct?

[Michael d'Eça]

Yes, that's correct. We got that information from the 2008 status report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Right.

The reason I am focusing on this is that quite clearly if we don't know the critical habitat of a species it's pretty difficult to figure out what we have to do to protect the species. And it really is almost more of a scientific question, but each of the witnesses who are here today has had experience with the SARA process.

So there really are two questions, but I'll ask them one at a time. The first is, what are the challenges you're aware of to identifying critical habitat? Let's stick with that for a moment, and if there is time I'll come back and ask you what you think the solutions are.

And since I started with Mr. d'Eça.... I know you're a lawyer and not a scientist, but lawyers of course know a little bit about a whole lot of things, and I wonder if you have any comment about the challenges to identifying critical habitat.

[Michael d'Eça]

Yes, I can say a couple of things about that.

First of all, though, you mentioned it's a scientific question. It is a scientific question, but it's a question you want to put to aboriginal peoples. And I expect my colleague will say you want to put it to organizations and individuals who have community knowledge.

In terms of challenges, the challenge is to locate and speak with the correct people. You want to speak to the scientists, for sure. But if you're looking at wolverine, Inuit have been harvesting wolverine and living in an ecosystem with wolverine--at least in Nunavut--for a thousand years. So they have a lot to say about the location of the critical habitat, what kind of protection should be offered, etc.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

We almost have to ask our witnesses to speak in point form because of the strict time limits, so I get the point on who to consult or consulting broadly enough.

Is there any other challenge you'd want to mention, or should I move on to another witness?

[Michael d'Eça]

No. Move on.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay.

Dr. Quinney, do you have any comment on that question?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Sure I do, because the challenges the biological scientists face in identifying critical habitat for any species boil down to the availability of the empirical evidence and the data. And for a lot of these critters--we've got 450 designated so far--that empirical evidence hasn't been collected, so it's not part of the scientific arena yet.

Among the challenges that are faced in the determination of critical habitat is how best to obtain the required empirical evidence for the scientists to do their thing.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Since I have such limited time, and you've each given me one--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Woodworth, so we'll pass this from one lawyer to another.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to facilitate my colleagues here. Maybe Mr. Trudeau could go for a minute or two. Is that okay, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's fine, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to go back, Dr. Quinney, to something you mentioned earlier that I wanted to follow up on in my first round: the parallels you're making between socio-economics as a science or as a source of information that can help preserve species and aid species recovery, and science itself.

While I understand we can use economics and human populations to help recover species, I'm not entirely clear on the capacity to do that as well as scientific knowledge would bring in, or without a strong pure science basis to our actions.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Why don't we try it? Let's give it a try.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I find your response cute—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

—but I have to say I'm not entirely sure how that would go.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

It's not cute. I'm sorry, it's not cute at all. What we're proposing is an alternative approach to what has unfolded over the last six years.

Are we doing the best we can? We think improvements can be made, and we're making suggestions to do so. We've brought nine concrete ones forward to you.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you. It was just more on that specific one. I'm not questioning your recommendations.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Anyone can take this.

It seems to me that the reason we require such rigorous science in terms of listing species is precisely because of the economic interests involved, and maybe the jurisdictional interests as well, or the potential for jurisdictional conflict between the federal government and the provinces. In other words, if we're going to bring in a recovery plan for a particular species, we'd better be sure that we have the supporting evidence that will allow us to withstand a barrage of criticism from economic interests that could be affected. It seems to me that when you really get down to it, it's like with accounting rules and big organizations, you really have to protect yourself. That seems to me to be why we rely on the rigorous science.

I'm wondering if there's a way—thinking creatively and not being a scientist, not being a lawyer—that a system can be established whereby if there are no really strong economic interests involved, the science could be made maybe a little less rigorous because there wouldn't be economic interests at stake that could rise up and challenge a recovery plan. I don't know if anyone has a comment to make about that.

Second, if there's time, in the case of the anglers and hunters, I understand your expertise and the fact that you care for the species, but if everything were given over to you to protect a species, because you must have a particular focus on particular species, would you overlook species like the snail, for example? You must have a particular focus.

Those are my two questions for whomever would like to answer them.

[Michael d'Eça]

First of all, I think it is necessary to prioritize your resources. From the perspective of the NWMB and the land claim under which we operate, it talks in terms of social, economic, and cultural needs of Inuit. So we tend to look at that.

But actually in terms of determining whether a species is endangered or a special concern, the NWMB is focused entirely upon conservation issues, upon the evidence that can be brought forward or not with respect to whether that species is at some level of risk.

Now what we do, of course, is look at science and the important knowledge of aboriginal peoples.

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Sir, the answer to your question about the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' priorities is yes, it would be fair to say that our members love to go hunting and fishing. They're fishing and hunting naturalists, though, in the sense that they love healthy nature, all the components of nature, including that snail.

They have funded the recovery of not only game species and game fish but those that have ecosystem value, like turtles that they don't harvest or like peregrine falcons, which they don't harvest. They love those animals too.