Environment Committee on March 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. That was five minutes.

Just to follow up, you made a comment, Ms. Poter, about clicking on a map and actually being able to see what species might be at risk. Has any interactive media been developed in that format online, so that essentially you could actually click in your area to find out what plant and animal species may be listed or endangered?

[Virginia Poter]

On what we have had on the web, we have the SARA registry. As for the way it's organized, it's the name of the species. You come into it that way. For all of us who use the web in our day-to-day life, that's not as user friendly, so you need to change what they call the user interface and how you connect in to get the information. A map approach to finding out about what species are in your part of the world is work that's under way. It just takes a while to get the technical bits to work well and then to make sure you have information that's up to date.

We had a previous application on the SARA registry that provided some range information about those species, but we found that the information sometimes was a bit out of date. Also, it wasn't very fine-grained information; it was in pretty broad swaths. So how helpful was it? We weren't really sure.

There is work under way. It's not going to be coming out in a month's time or two months' time; it's going to take a little while to put that in place.

[Dr. Gilles Seutin]

If I may add to that, the devil is in the details, as usual. Some species are overharvested or poached, so you don't want those to be mapped, right?

For peregrine falcon nests, are you going to post where the nests are? No. That's one example.

Another thing that becomes a real problem, especially in southern and eastern Canada where you have a lot of private land, is the nature of the land, of it being private land. If I have a woodlot there, I'm not sure that I want everybody to know that the species is there. I'm a very good citizen and I'll do all the good stewardship, but I may not want all the birdwatchers to know that they could come to my woodlot to check out that rare bird.

There is a number of difficulties with implementing such tools--and it's going to be species-dependent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I can appreciate that as a landowner myself, but the other side of it may be how we do that education of the citizens, so that they understand what's in their neighbourhood and what they might want to watch out for so they're not disturbing that environment.

Mr. Eyking, it's your turn.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. McGuinty is going to take my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McGuinty, you have five minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Can I go back to some questions I asked earlier, which deal with the thinking that underpins this act? I think Mr. Warawa rightly pointed out that it was a difficult piece of legislation to craft and that it does have a bearing on people's interests--private interests and public interests.

It hearkens back to what I was alluding to earlier, which is that as long as we keep pretending that eco-services and the species that reside in this country are free, that they have no value, that they're not costed, and that they're not part of the national accounts, then it will be business as usual. We will continue to draw down that capital with impunity and, every so often, because of SARA, we'll catch a species that is in trouble and we'll go through a detailed scientific process to say, “Houston, we have a problem”, and we'll send a flare up into the sky.

But the reality on the 2008 report that was just tabled here, if I understand it, is that the second report in the wild species series, “Wild Species 2005”, says we have “general status assessments” for a total of 7,732 species. That's 7,732, but then it goes on to say that the total number of species in Canada is estimated at more than 70,000--and we don't even know if that number is accurate. So we're being told that 10% of the estimated species in this country has had some kind of application of scientific analysis; that's nowhere, so I want to ask you a question.

You may not be able to answer this question. I'm just thinking out loud. But how are we expected to believe that SARA as presently constituted is going to be anything more than a band-aid solution at the back end, frankly, when we see that there are stressors on particular species, we deploy scientific capacity, and we report back to the state that we have a problem? This seems to be absolutely a losing battle.

If we don't overhaul the approach to species, and I would go further... I asked questions about this before, in the last round, Mr. Chair, to witnesses that came here about SARA. I asked a series of questions about compensation. If I'm a landowner and I have several hundred acres, or a thousand acres, or fifty acres, and there are species of plants and animals on that land, and I'm expected to be a steward of those species, is society not expected to compensate me for that good stewardship, whether it's through a tax credit, compensation in cash, or as part of revenue?

How do you ask this of private landowners? I mean, this whole system was a beginning. The best way to start is to start; we had nothing before. Now we have something to work off. You're on the front lines as practitioners. You deal with this act every day. I'm just trying to get a sense of what we have to do here to deal with a shortfall. What are the next steps you would propose as practitioners on the front lines who are in the business of applying this act?

What do we have to do to improve the situation, given what I've just put out on the compensation angle and the fact that it's a losing battle? We don't even have the science. For example, we have a Geological Survey of Canada, but we don't have a biological survey of Canada. What would you say are the next two or three steps that as legislators we can recommend to the government in order to be able to say that this is how we can improve this act on the front lines?

[Virginia Poter]

As an official, my job is to implement the act I have. When I look at the Species at Risk Act and realize that it's five or six years old now and there are approaches and flexibilities that we have yet to try within the existing act, it would be hard for me, as an official, to speculate on how the act might be or should be changed.

I take your point about what we know about the natural world around us. There's a lot we don't know, but I think it's not necessary to know everything to have a sense of what's happening. I very much take your point. We think there are about 70,000 species in Canada, and we know something about 7,000 of them. We've had COSEWIC particularly assess maybe about 800 of them now, so it's stepping down...

But on the other hand, if you have a handle on what's happening across the country in all of the main ecoregions, many of the species are interrelated, so one of the approaches that is certainly possible within SARA recovery planning is an ecosystem or multi-species approach. We've recently been working on one that deals with 20 or more plants in part of Nova Scotia. That allows you to look more holistically at what's happening in that part of the country. Maybe you're focused one species or a group of species, but I would imagine that in most instances you're also benefiting many other species in that same area.

I take your point. We don't know a lot. We know something about some of the species. I think we can take action that can benefit all, even without perfect knowledge. At some time, I have to make that trade-off between how much I need to know before I can take action.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

That was an interesting question by Mr. McGuinty with respect to compensation. I hope he shares those same thoughts with another Mr. McGuinty with respect to greenbelt legislation.

But I'll go on to the matter at hand, which is the Species at Risk Act. My question revolves around how SARA does or doesn't act with respect to municipal land. How do we protect species at risk on lands that are municipally zoned? Or can we? I'm thinking of my region, which has the most plant and animal species at risk of anywhere in Canada.

What if a plant that's particularly rare to Canada is located on municipal land? Can SARA help protect that or not? Is that left to things like environmental assessments when proponents decide they want to build something on a particular piece of land?

[Virginia Poter]

Perhaps I could start. Under SARA, as I tried to explain, there are the prohibitions that come into play, whether they're for critical habitat or the general prohibitions that protect the species themselves.

The provinces have first call on those species for which they're responsible. Other than migratory birds and aquatics, if species at risk are found on provincial crown land or on private land, which would cover municipal lands, we look to the provinces to have in place effective instruments to ensure that there is protection of the species at risk. That, to me, would be the first step.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

What types of instruments would they be? Are we talking about an environmental assessment or other tools with the province?

[Virginia Poter]

For an instrument to provide effective protection, it must be a legally binding instrument. Licences, regulation permits, and laws, those types of enforceable instruments, are what would be considered as to whether or not effective protection is being provided.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Let me think on that a little bit longer.

If I have any time left, could Mr. Shipley take it? I want to reflect on that. I may come back with another question.

[An hon. member]

You may not have any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have two minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much.

Let me go straight to an example. We have a situation in a river where there used to be a port. The port has been closed. It needs to be reopened; there's silt in the port. It has been determined that there is a species at risk.

This species at risk is a particular mussel. We've been trying to bring a business into an area that had a population of 12,000 and has lost over 6,000 jobs, and we've basically lost that business coming in. In your presentation, you talk about how you cannot “Kill, harm, harass, capture or take [an] individual” or “Damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals”.

DFO's own engineers have said that the habitat that is there now because of silt isn't one that this particular individual would live in. We could take you up the stream, where there are millions of them plugging up drains, and yet this was about the law. It was about the written word. The field people--not all of them--don't seem to have any co-relationship, quite honestly, between the balance of an economy and the balance of a species at risk. I mean, we don't even do this to humans. We can't have laws that say that if I were to harm or harass, it almost becomes criminal.

Then we were asked for not tens of thousands of dollars, but tens of thousands of dollars plus, up to $100,000, and it was, “Well, you can do this scientific research”. We had an individual who said, “I can do that for $2,500”. That individual said, “I'll take my boat out, I've lived here all my life, I know what the river is like, I know what's in the bottom, and I know there aren't any”. Said that individual, “I'll put the small pole down and I'll measure the bottom because I can feel it”.

All I'm saying is I that agree with the species at risk, but somewhere along the way we've lost our perspective about the balance in some cases. We always talk about the difficulty in listing. I'm asking about how we delist those species that are not at risk. I would just ask you this: how do you determine the thresholds of species at risk in regions and areas where I can take you and would be glad to show you? I don't know what the threshold is; it must be beyond...

But if the people I was dealing with harmed or harassed one of these little mussels, it was almost to the point that there were going to be criminal charges, or a $200,000 fine, I think it was. How do we get to a threshold in areas? Who determines what that threshold is? Who determines the critical habitat evaluation? Who does that and is it in fact a stumbling block to delist?

So there are four questions for you, and then I have another one.

[Pardeep Ahluwalia]

It was an interesting set of questions. I'll take a shot at some of them. My colleagues, I'm sure, will help me out.

I'd rather talk in general than on the very specific example you gave, because the questions you asked--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I've used the specifics...[Inaudible--Editor].

[Pardeep Ahluwalia]

I understand that. That's why I'd rather move it away from the specific.

In terms of thresholds, the threshold for an assessment of a species to be determined to be at risk is developed by COSEWIC using a series of criteria that COSEWIC has based on international criteria. These are not criteria that are arbitrary; they are well understood and well utilized in the international environment. The population decline and the population threat criteria are established by COSEWIC and used by COSEWIC in its scientific assessment as to whether the species is deemed to be at risk.

The critical habitat identification is guided, at least to some degree, by the COSEWIC assessment, the COSEWIC report, but the final identification is the minister's prerogative. The work done is led by government officials to determine what is the critical habitat component, i.e., the piece that is essential for survival and recovery over the overall habitat of the species. That's very much led by government officials.

When we come to what might be a determination, that's published for public commentary. As my colleagues mentioned, in many cases it's done in very close collaboration with scientists and stakeholders as we try to determine what this is.

The delisting question has been raised a number of times. As far as I can understand the process--because we've not got there yet--it's essentially the same as the listing process. It's a change in the regulation, which would take a species off schedule 1 of SARA. Unless my colleagues have different views, I would see this as being triggered by the same process that we would use to list a species, i.e., we would need an evaluation by COSEWIC, either as part of its 10-year re-evaluation of every species, or if the committee is of the view that the population status has changed substantially and requires an earlier review.

When we get that assessment, if COSEWIC were to say, for example—and this has happened—that they have not taken them off, but have downgraded the threat status of species, that would be where the scientific assessment has said that this species is no longer at the risk level that they thought it was, and they would assess it as being less at risk. We would take that into account and that could become a delisting decision.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

How do you get to—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Bev, but you can have a very short response.

[Virginia Poter]

I would just like to offer one point. In cases such as the one you were talking about, it brings to my mind the permitting provisions within SARA. Under section 73 and a variety of other sections in the act, “incidental take” can be permitted in certain circumstances as long as it does not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

This is a concern that has been raised with me just recently. The Species at Risk Act is one piece of legislation, but the federal government has more powers, under both the Fisheries and Oceans Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

What if there is incidental take of, say, a piping plover that accidentally decides to nest on the side of a lake where there's a cattle pasture? What if a herd of cattle goes walking through there and destroys the habitat and the nests? What type of penalty might be faced? Or are there going to be regulations on incidental take that would allow in the process some of these things that are quite accidental? Because with migratory birds, you never know where they're going to land.

[Virginia Poter]

We already have provisions in SARA to permit incidental take. A number of considerations must be followed before you could provide a permit. You must avoid and you must mitigate. You don't really have any other choice; this is what you have to do. Then, if that is the circumstance, you must be doing it in a way that is posing the least harm or having the least impact on the species. It is quite specific to the circumstance at hand and it must not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

So if you wanted to dredge this particular place and it was the home of the last set of mussels, or you couldn't remove those mussels and put them in a different place and expect that they would recover, if those were the circumstances, then no, you wouldn't be able to dredge there. It sounds to me like that's not the case, but I don't have the particulars.