Environment Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Virginia Poter]

Perhaps I could explain some of what has to happen once we receive the assessments from COSEWIC. That is the biological need of the species, and as I mentioned earlier, one of the requirements for the GIC to make regulatory decisions is to have a full understanding as laid out in the RIAS, the regulatory impact analysis statement.

In many instances, the federal government doesn't have the information with regard to the species. For terrestrial species, as a good example, the federal government has accountability for migratory birds, but when it comes to plant species, mammals, insects, or amphibians, in most cases they fall normally within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and we have to work with them to collect information.

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

As far as recovery planning is concerned, I have some figures dating from June 2007. I see here that there should have been recovery plans established for 228 species but that only 55 were completed. As I said, these are 2007 figures. I do not have anything more recent.

Is the situation any better now, in 2009-10?

[Virginia Poter]

Yes. We have more recovery strategies now. I believe the number is 119. I'll get the specific number for you in a moment; I know you don't have much time.

So it has improved. I would just flag, though, that when the act came into force, there were 233 species already listed. After that, more species were added to the list every year. Now we have over 400 species. Obviously, when that many species are at the start of the coming into effect of the law, you have a backlog, which you must start working through.

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

I would like to know for what percentage of species have recovery plans been drafted. You said that there are now 119 of them but, even if the number of species listed has increased, it is quite possible that the percentage has remained the same. It seems to me that it was 23% or 24% at the time, i.e. about a quarter. Has the percentage of recovery plans increased?

[Virginia Poter]

Right now it's about 25%.

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

Okay.

[Virginia Poter]

However, I would flag that there are many recovery strategies in development. I would also flag that the early days were spent building the processes. For example, when we had species occurring on the land claim settlement area in Nunavut, we had to establish a process whereby we could engage with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and lay out the many processes to respect the NLCA. It takes time to build that relationship, to build that tool. Well, now we have the tool, so we can start pushing through our northern species.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Hyer, welcome back. I understand you're pinch-hitting today for Ms. Duncan. You have the floor.

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

It's my pleasure. As a caribou biologist, it's fun to be here and think about them and 7,700 other species.

I'm going to build on what Mr. Bigras said. When SARA became law, 233 species were listed in schedule 1. I just heard you say that recovery strategies were required by June 2007 for 119. That was going to be one of my questions; you gave the answer, which you think is 119, although I thought it was 106. My homework indicates 106, but it's in that order of magnitude, so it's about half of what should be done. As well, management plans for a further 43 species of special concern were required by June 2008, and I think about 20 of those have been done.

Last year Ms. Wright came here and told us that the pace of implementation was improving. That's not really what I'm hearing, unless I'm not understanding it properly. Have you really improved in 2008, particularly relative to the expanding growth?

When are you going to catch up with the backlog, when are you going to be in compliance with the act, and why aren't the targets being met? Do you not have the resources you need? Do you not have the organization within the department? Do you not have the political will within the department? Are you getting interference from outside the department? There seems to be a problem.

Second, under SARA, it's up to the government to legally protect wildlife species designated by COSEWIC. You've assessed only 775 out of 7,700 designated species, if I'm correct. That's a tiny fraction--maybe 10% or worse--of the species in Canada. Again my question would be, “Why?”, and when and how will we make better progress?

My third question bothers me the most. There are two strategies for dealing with endangered species: one is to protect gene pools and population--short-term survival strategy to medium-term survival strategy--and the other, equally important, is long-term habitat protection. As of last year, if I understand this correctly, only 22 species have had their critical habitat even identified, never mind protected.

Let me give you an example that's near and dear to my heart. Caribou, according to your document, or according to Ms. Wright last year, are primarily managed by provincial jurisdiction. Trust me: in Ontario it's just not happening very well. It's a dubious assumption to say that provinces are doing this accurately. The West Moberly First Nations had to go to B.C. Supreme Court on this. They're near Chetwynd, B.C. They had to go to court to get a decision to protect critical habitat there, so the first nation actually had to do your job for you.

I'd like you to leave me at least a minute for a quick question for Gilles. I realize it's a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of question, but what's necessary here for Environment Canada to really start to move decisively and more quickly to protect critical habitat and identify the species and the habitats that are required?

[Virginia Poter]

I'm not sure we have enough time to address all your questions, so--

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

You can call me or write to me later, if you like.

[Virginia Poter]

I will speak to some of the challenges around critical habitat identification, to start off, and then move on from there.

Identifying the habitat that species need sounds straightforward, but in some cases it is not so straightforward. The woodland caribou boreal population is an example, and I'm sure you're very familiar with it. We've done quite a bit of work in trying to figure out what the habitat is that needs to be protected--that is, what the critical habitat is--but the species is, as you know, wide-ranging and uses large swaths of land, essentially the boreal area, or about one-third of Canada. It would be pretty hard to say that all of that is off limits, so the instinctive notion that there's a plot of land...

One of my colleagues always talks about the Banff Springs snail. It's fairly easy--protect this little patch of land and you've nailed it--but it's not the same thing when you're talking about a species such as the caribou. This is a species that's wide-ranging and can tolerate disturbance on the landscape, but how much disturbance, and in what conditions? We are spending a fair bit of effort trying to make sure we understand that, because our belief is that if we can get it right for the boreal woodland caribou, we can probably get it all right.

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

But you've delegated it to the provinces.

[Virginia Poter]

No. As we speak, the federal government has a lot of work under way on the woodland boreal caribou. We are doing three types of activities. We have science work under way, we're currently collecting aboriginal traditional knowledge and community knowledge, and we have a lot of consultation under way across the country as it relates to the population objectives and distribution and to the threats and the practices that can help mitigate them. As well, there is scientific work that is trying to come up with what the relationship is between the disturbance on the ground and the needs and implications for the caribou.

Our expectation is that for this species, which is very challenging from a biological perspective, we will have a recovery strategy, with critical habitat identified, in at least a draft stage in the summer of 2011. I know that this is perhaps a longer delay than all of us would like, but this is the reality. This is a biologically challenging species.

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

Thank you.

I have a really quick question for Gilles.

Gilles, I'm concerned at directions I've seen lately. Environment Canada, Parks Canada, did a survey about how people would tolerate improved partnerships within national parks. I was concerned that it was code for more human activities and less protection in national parks.

I have a specific example that you may be able to update me on, and that is the Marmot Basin in Jasper, just as an example. The ski development there would like to take some parkland and do a swap for other land that's at best equal and at worst not as good. Do you know what point that idea has reached? Has that been quashed? Is this still at risk?

The reason I'm asking is that it's important in its own right, but it's also indicative of whether we are going to hold to the guidelines, which say that any swaps have to result in significant improvement in the status of endangered species.

[Dr. Gilles Seutin]

I was expecting... The last time we were called here, we had a question about park establishment. This is about park management and the primacy of the ecological integrity rule that it has to be maintained—

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

And protecting critical habitat.

[Dr. Gilles Seutin]

Yes--and the need for protecting critical habitat.

I have to mention first that critical habitat for the southern mountain caribou, which we're talking about in this case, has not yet been defined. Work is under way. It is absolutely clear that any and all discussions of the Marmot Basin development must take into full account the fact that this is probably the last strong herd, the southernmost one, of southern mountain caribou, and Parks Canada will not do anything that will jeopardize that herd.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Hyer.

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

Thank you. That's perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to continue.

Mr. Warawa, you can clean us up on the seven-minute round.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

This is the first review of SARA, or a continuation of it; we started it almost a year ago now, I think. As a little bit of history, it was in the early 2000s that the Liberal government made a number of attempts to get SARA through. There were three failed attempts, I think, because there was a lot of concern that SARA be written right and that there be appropriate compensation for properties that were identified as part of a critical habitat. SARA has a history of being difficult to get through.

Now we have SARA, and our duty is to find out what works, what doesn't work, and how SARA can be improved. That's our job, so we appreciate your sharing with us how the process is working.

You talked about the critical habitat. Are there socio-economic considerations when you identify a critical habitat or are there no socio-economic considerations?

There are none...?

[Virginia Poter]

There are none. Critical habitat is identified strictly on the biological needs of the species.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. So when COSEWIC identifies a species, there are no socio-economic considerations, right?