Environment Committee on March 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We're going to be starting our fifth meeting to continue our study, which is to do a statutory review of the Species at Risk Act pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and section 129 of the Species at Risk Act and the motion adopted by our committee on March 16.

Coming back to give us a briefing again is the department. This time, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, we have with us Virginia Poter, the director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service. From the Parks Canada Agency, we have Gilles Seutin, who is in the ecological integrity branch. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Pardeep Ahluwalia, who is the director general of the species at risk directorate.

Welcome, all of you.

I believe, Madam Poter, that you're going to bring us the opening comments. We look forward to hearing them.

[Virginia Poter, Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I'm here representing Environment Canada. As was noted, my two colleagues are with me from Fisheries and Oceans and Parks Canada. Together, the three departments work to implement the Species at Risk Act.

I'll provide the opening presentation and, together, my colleagues and I will do our best to answer your questions.

My opening comments will provide a fairly high-level background on the act as a refresher to the committee and also will provide an overview of the draft SARA policy suite that has been made publicly available since the officials last appeared before the committee.

Let me provide a bit of context for the Species at Risk Act, or SARA. A number of acts, federal, provincial, and territorial, seek to conserve and sustain wildlife. Earlier acts, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, focused on encouraging action that would keep common species common. However, it was recognized that the preventative approach was not enough and that a formal emergency room for wildlife was needed to complement the mosaic of laws. Accordingly, in 2003 SARA was promulgated, focusing on wildlife at risk.

Turning to slide 4 in our deck, we can see that SARA is premised on the view that it is in our interest to protect species at risk. Canada's biodiversity is essential to the health and well-being of Canadians and our economy. Almost 14% of Canada's GDP depends on healthy ecosystems: forestry, agriculture, fisheries, and recreation.

Healthy ecosystems also provide services that aren't formally reflected in our national accounts, including carbon sequestration, clean air and water, disease and pest control, pollination of food crops, and aesthetic and other spiritual benefits. Ecosystems that provide these benefits require diverse, viable populations of species, and these species require habitat. The loss and fragmentation of habitat is the leading cause of species at risk.

Species found at the edge of their ranges, like many Canadian species at risk, may harbour important genetic adaptations, potentially contributing to the bank of genetic material essential to innovation in key economic sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and the pharmaceutical industry. The presence of species at risk can also provide us with an early warning that the ecosystem is out of balance. It is in our interest to protect species at risk.

SARA, as slide 5 indicates, was put in place to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct or being extirpated and to support their recovery. It addresses all wildlife in Canada, ranging from large mammals to fish, insects, plants, and other species. SARA establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the population status of species and a mechanism for listing species. SARA also includes provision for the protection of individuals of listed wildlife species, their residences, and critical habitat.

SARA is prescriptive in many ways about how these purposes are to be met. It sets out timelines for actions under the act and requires consultation at most key decision points.

I'll turn to slide 6. Species do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, so cooperation is crucial to the conservation and protection of species at risk. SARA explicitly recognizes the shared responsibility for conservation and wildlife in Canada. It is not something the federal government can accomplish on its own.

The Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk was agreed to by the federal government and provinces and territories in 1996. The goal of the accord is to prevent species in Canada from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity. SARA is the key legislation for the federal government to implement the accord.

Under SARA, accountability is shared by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment, who is also the minister responsible for Parks Canada. The Minister of the Environment is responsible for overall implementation of the act, for terrestrial species on federal lands, and for making recommendations to the GIC, and, as the minister responsible for parks, is also responsible for all species, terrestrial and aquatic, found in parks.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for implementing the act for all aquatic species outside national parks and for providing the Minister of the Environment with listing recommendations for aquatic species. Provinces and territories are key partners and are responsible for terrestrial species on provincial crown and private lands. Given the shared responsibility for species at risk in Canada, we have a number of governance, advisory, and supporting structures.

I won't go through the slide on page 7, other than to note that it was presented at a previous appearance by officials and illustrates the framework under which provinces, territories, and we ourselves operate. We have taken this “SARA cycle”, as we call it, as the framework for the draft policy suite that I'll be speaking to next.

Let's turn to slide 8. Given the complexity of SARA, commitments were made early on to develop policies that would explain the federal government's understanding of the act and its obligations. Work started early after promulgation of SARA, but in light of the key role provinces and territories play regarding species at risk in Canada, policy development was suspended while the national framework just mentioned was developed.

Once the framework was complete, officials from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, and the Department of Justice, and extensive engagement with provinces, territories, and other stakeholders as well, informed the development of draft policies. These draft policies were published in December 2009. We're currently finalizing the policy suite.

I will now step through each of the chapters of the policy suite, starting with page 9.

Chapter 1 focuses on assessment. Assessment is conducted by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. COSEWIC is independent and is comprised of members from federal, provincial, and territorial governments, academia, aboriginal organizations, non-government organizations, and the private sector. COSEWIC assessments are based on quantitative criteria and draw on scientific knowledge, aboriginal traditional knowledge, and community knowledge.

I should highlight that COSEWIC assesses the status of wildlife in Canada, not globally, as is the case under American legislation. It is important to note that socio-economic considerations are not factored into COSEWIC's assessments and that COSEWIC's priorities are established by the committee and not by government.

Turning to slide 10, the second chapter of the policy suite describes the listing process and the protections that flow from listing under SARA. The next slide, which I won't go through, provides the listing steps as laid out in the policy.

One of the key points in this chapter relates to the nine-month SARA timeline for listing. The policy clearly states that the clock starts upon the receipt of the assessment by the Governor in Council, and not upon COSEWIC's delivery of the assessment to the Minister of the Environment. The policies also articulate that federal acts, such as fisheries acts, the Canada National Parks Act, and others will be used in addition to SARA as appropriate.

The chapter also clarifies the Government of Canada's interpretation of effective protection; that is, the protection that provinces and territories afford those species at risk for which they are accountable, i.e., not migratory birds, not aquatic species, but other species found on non-federal lands.

I would like to add a couple of points with regard to listing. First of all, listing is done through a regulatory process and, as such, is subject to the government policy on regulation, specifically the cabinet directive on streamlining regulation. One of the requirements of this directive is to include a regulatory impact assessment statement. Within it, you must consider socio-economic implications of the proposed regulatory change. In the case of SARA, it is at the listing point rather than at the assessment point that socio-economic factors come into play.

I'll turn to slide 12. This is the chapter that focuses on recovery planning and articulates that there is a two-step process for extirpated, endangered, and threatened species. We have to prepare a recovery strategy as well as an action plan, whereas for species of special concern we must only prepare management plans. Recovery strategies and action plans can...

I'm being told that I have one minute. I'm not quite sure where to go.

I think what would be important to flag here is that within recovery strategies we must identify critical habitat to the extent possible. This is a key consideration for the development of this document. The identification of critical habitat must specify both the location and the features that make it so important for species at risk.

The purpose of identifying critical habitat is to ensure that it is protected from human activities that would result in its destruction. As such, the amount, quality, and locations of habitat are derived from the stated population and distribution objective, but not from consideration of socio-economic factors. This is a key point that we remind many of our stakeholders about.

I will skip over slide 13 in the interests of time, other than to flag that over the five years--almost six years now--that SARA has been in force, we've developed a lot of understanding about what makes a good document. As such, we have recently updated our guidance to provide documents that are far more streamlined and practical.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

If I may interrupt you for a minute, Madam Poter, we just went over 10 minutes.

Is it okay, committee members, if we let the witness finish her presentation? Because this is a briefing, and we want to make sure that we're all well informed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll allow you to continue since there's agreement.

[Virginia Poter]

Thanks very much.

I will turn now to slide 14, the draft implementation policy, the fourth step in the cycle. As was previously stated, the responsibility to protect species at risk in Canada is shared. Accordingly, as noted in this chapter of the policy suite, implementation is shared by various parties using various approaches.

SARA specifically stresses that the foundation of recovery planning is a stewardship approach. This chapter also lays out the variety of tools the federal government uses, including such things as federal funding programs, like the habitat stewardship program; our federal protected areas, including national parks; and also environmental assessment, regulation, permits, and so on.

Turning to slide 15, the last chapter of the SARA policy suite deals with monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of species protection, recovery, and management activity. Given that SARA is cyclical, monitoring and evaluation inform all of the SARA cycles through a variety of mechanisms. The objective is to assess progress toward achieving the recovery goals, the effectiveness of our actions, and the appropriateness of the goals and objectives we have set in the first place.

Turning to slide 16, I'd just like to conclude by providing a very short overview of the key protections afforded by SARA. First are the general prohibitions. These are laid out on the slide, and basically they say that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture, possess, collect, buy, sell, or trade individual species at risk. As well, damaging or destroying the residence of one or more individuals is prohibited.

These general prohibitions apply only to extirpated, endangered, or threatened species, not to species of special concern. They automatically apply to migratory birds and aquatic species and to other species when they're found on federal lands.

The next key protection afforded by SARA is the protection of critical habitat, and that is the subject of much interest among many of our stakeholders. Once identified, critical habitat must be legally protected if found on federal lands. As for critical habitat found on non-federal lands, the laws of the province or territory must effectively protect it. The minister will consider that these laws effectively protect it when an instrument of a binding nature that is effective at producing the intended result under SARA is in place.

The final slide deals with the last two protections afforded by SARA, the first being the safety net order.

If, after consultation with the applicable province or territory, where the minister is of the opinion that the laws of the province or territory do not effectively protect the species, its residences or its critical habitat, the minister may recommend to the GIC that a prohibition be applied to protect the species, its residence, or any part of the critical habitat. This is what's known as the safety net order. In such instances, the minister will recommend to the GIC that an order be repealed once the province or territory has developed an instrument that provides effective protection.

The last provision is emergency protection orders. Under SARA, the GIC, on the recommendation of the competent minister, may make an emergency order in cases where protection under other SARA provisions will not be in place within a sufficiently timely manner to ensure the survival or recovery of the species. The minister would make this recommendation only after consultation with other competent ministers, i.e., the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Environment, and may discuss this with aboriginal peoples or governments as appropriate.

Having provided a fairly high level overview of the act and the draft SARA policy suite, I will conclude my opening comments. My colleagues and I would be pleased to address the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. I appreciate those opening comments.

Again, I want to draw the committee's attention to O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 20, page 1068, which states that “public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government”. We often tend to go down that road in questioning our public servants, so I would just ask that we keep our comments to the nature of the act itself and to the review we're undertaking here.

Mr. McGuinty, you may kick us off, please. You have seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to start with science; I've seen “science” repeated here many times. You've alluded to the notion of natural capital; you haven't used the term, but you've alluded to it in terms of healthy ecosystems. In the last meeting we had on the estimates, we heard that there is some work going on, although not as much as we'd probably all like to see, on the indicators initiative that would lead to a new set of national accounts, for example, at Statistics Canada. I'm sure you would like to see that, but I want to talk to you about science.

Nowhere in this entire brief have you made a reference to climate change. I don't think you have. I followed you page by page, but there's no reference at all to climate change. Can you help Canadians understand how much science is now going on in the department under the act? Give us an idea of how many scientists there are and how much money is being spent. How have you connected species at risk to the overarching threat that the climate change crisis is presenting today? It is nowhere here, so can you give us some understanding?

[Virginia Poter]

I'll give it my best shot, but I think I'll need to have follow-up information. I don't have statistics as they relate to Environment Canada and the proportion of our resources that is expended on climate change; that is not within my remit, if you will, but if the committee desires that information, we can certainly see if we have it. I don't know if we collect information that way.

As it relates to species at risk, certainly climate change is a factor that for some species is one of the key threats to the survival and recovery of the species, but it's not the case for every species at risk. What I think is generally found is that the largest risk to a species becoming at risk relates to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, as well as invasive species. In the case of terrestrial species, climate change is one of those factors that would perhaps lead to land alterations, which may be a contributing factor to habitat loss or fragmentation, but so far, in and of itself, it is not a leading threat overall for species at risk.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How much science are we doing? I mean, I hear you: you're saying the two greatest sources of stress on species are habitat loss/fragmentation and invasive species. You've just also said that climate change is a major factor on both of those fronts.

[Virginia Poter]

It can be. Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It can be, so how much are we doing? What is your unit doing now? Do you know how much was done through the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which, you may not know, is being wound up? How much is going on?

I would think the overarching risk to species is climate change. Am I wrong? Are Canadians wrong? In the immediate and maybe even in the middle term, that may not be the case, but over the longer term, temperature increases, desertification, and water temperature increases all have a major bearing on species going forward. I'm just trying to get a sense of this.

I have asked repeatedly, as the chair knows. I have been asking for five years for the climate change plan from the government. I've never seen one, so I'm wondering how you are taking the climate change crisis into account now under the implementation of the Species at Risk Act, much less its review.

I'm trying to get a sense of how we can improve this bill to make sure that we factor this in and that the appropriate amount of science will be going into climate change and effects on species. Can you help us connect these things?

[Virginia Poter]

I can try, but I'm hoping my colleagues can come up with some views also.

I would start by saying that our implementation of the Species at Risk Act is founded on the assessment phase, which is conducted by an independent committee, COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Those scientists, PhD types, are drawn from many walks of life, including government, NGOs, industry, and academia. They consider the species. What does it mean if you are talking about a polar bear, for example? Maybe that's one thing, while if you're talking about a bird, it's something else.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Ms. Poter, my time is really short. I hear you loud and clear. What you're saying is that it really does boil down to the specificity of the species, isn't that right?

[Virginia Poter]

Yes, I think so.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand that. Top researchers would be called in, COSEWIC's and others, to say that we have a species at risk here, or extirpated, or whatever the word might be.

I'm asking: do we know, do we have any information, and is SARA is compelling Canadians to get prepared for the inevitability of temperature increases because of the climate change crisis? Do you have a general indication? Is SARA is forcing us to get prepared, not after the damage has occurred or stresses are being identified and measured? But we know this is coming. Only a fool would not believe that this stage of climate is changing and that the temperature is increasing. Even the government has said that we're going to fight to hold temperature increases to two degrees Celsius. In Copenhagen, it signed every document that said so.

Are we not doing anything on this going forward? Isn't SARA really compelling us to deal with this huge natural capital asset--which will be at risk over time--not after the fact, but before?

[Dr. Gilles Seutin, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada Agency]

Let me try to add something. In its structure, SARA is quite prescriptive and is charging us largely to look at the immediate threats that species are facing. It's the emergency ward.

Understanding that in the spread of many invasive species, diseases, and things such as that, there are underlying long-term trends, SARA, in the way it is structured, is really telling us to tackle the immediate current urgency. In that case, it's actually pulling the invasive weeds that prevent the native grass from growing.

It's clear that a comprehensive environmental policy needs to look at the long-term underlying causes, but SARA itself, as legislation, is built for this current immediate response.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty.

We'll go to Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. chair.

I thank the witnesses who are here today.

I am going to ask questions based on your diagram of page 7. I will limit myself to three issues: assessment, protection and recovery planning.

When a species is listed, it is largely based on a scientific analysis and report as well as on the reports of COSEWIC. That organization tries to assess the vulnerability of the species and to determine if it is threatened.

Is it standard procedure for the department to list a species which, according to scientists, is vulnerable or threatened? Is it automatic?

Let us take a specific example: marine fish. From what I understand, the government has always rejected the recommendation of COSEWIC to list species of marine fish as endangered species.

How can you explain that the department, which should in theory trust its scientists, can ignore their recommendation?

[Virginia Poter]

I can start, and then perhaps my colleague from Fisheries and Oceans would continue.

The way the act has been constructed is to look to COSEWIC to provide the scientific perspective on the needs of the species. Based on that, a socio-economic analysis is applied to it and a recommendation is provided that is then taken to the Governor in Council for a listing decision, based on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment. In many cases, but not all cases, the assessment—not the recommendation, but the assessment—from COSEWIC is accepted and is reflected in the listing decision by the Governor in Council.

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

So, it is not automatic. When the advice of scientists is ignored and the species is not listed as being at risk, in how many cases were the economic factors the key consideration in the decision? Is there not a species of salmon that has not been listed because of economic considerations? Is that possible?

[Virginia Poter]

One of the considerations the GIC would take into account is whether there are other acts of Parliament that can afford protection for the species at risk. This is some of the decision-making that will have taken place when the GIC comes to a decision in relation to listing.

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

All right.

Is there a prescribed timeline in the Act for the listing of a species? I suppose there must be one in terms of months or years. I do not know what it is. I have only the average.

[Virginia Poter]

Slide 11 tries to lay out the process for listing, and in the interest of time I skipped over that slide. It tries to lay out in fairly clear terms, we hope, how long it takes from the time the assessment is received until the time when GIC can make a decision. Typically, it takes about a year. I'm trying to remember the dates.

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

From the information I have, the average time required for listing a species under SARA is two and a half years. Is that correct? Generally speaking, does the department respect the timelines prescribed in the legislation?