Environment Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Virginia Poter]

Yes, absolutely.

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

Are aboriginal communities consulted at the same time or will they be consulted later on?

[Virginia Poter]

No. I think it's been known since SARA came into force that the boreal caribou was an important species to develop a recovery strategy for, so early work was undertaken, but aboriginal peoples were not engaged right from the beginning.

So what we've done is to say, okay, the work that has been done is helpful and will be useful, but from here forward, we're going to engage with our aboriginal people, who really live in harmony with the caribou, as well as engaging with industry and science. So we have this three-pronged approach of getting new science to help us define how we operationalize the critical habitat identification. We have a stream of work collecting aboriginal traditional knowledge and community knowledge, as well as consultations more broadly, and it's under way as we speak.

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

Are you recommending putting an end to logging, partially or totally, in some parts of Canada?

Is that one of the options for an action plan, a recovery plan, in order to try to prevent the extinction of the species which, from the assessments, would happen before the end of the century?

[Virginia Poter]

I don't foresee that being a recommended option because the biology of the caribou means that it moves around on the landscape; it doesn't always live in the same part of the forest. It is a species that has adapted to forest fires, so leaving aside the impact of humans on the landscape, fire regimes are part of the biology of the caribou.

They move on the landscape, so what I imagine we'll have is an identification of critical habitat that says this outer perimeter, if you will, must be managed so that at any one time you don't have more disturbance than so much of this certain type. That's how I think it will come forward, but I'm waiting for the science to inform us particularly of that--as well as aboriginal knowledge, community knowledge, and consultations with groups like FPAC and others.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ton temps est écoulé.

Mr. Hyer.

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

Thank you.

We're back to caribou. I have a rhetorical question that you don't have to answer.

With caribou, we have scientists who have already given Environment Canada recommendations on critical habitat, and repeatedly, in my understanding. It seems to me that the real problem is that the recommendations are not being implemented. They're being ignored. You can let me know later if I'm wrong about that.

It's not easy and it's a big issue, but it's really pretty simple. You're on the right track with what you've just said. I would agree with it. But as for all we need to protect, again, it's simple, but not easy. We need to protect winter habitat currently used, winter habitat supply for the future--to maintain or create that future habitat-- and calving habitat and corridors, and we need to avoid trails, roads, and seismic corridors and things that allow humans and predators to access the caribou. It's a simple prescription. And it's not a third of the land base and not an eighth of the land base; it's probably way less than that. It's doable, so please get on with it.

The critical habitat is what this is all about. As you can probably hear, I am feeling a little frustrated that we're moving so slowly in this area. For example, to move away from caribou, the Federal Court found that in the Pacific region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada made a policy decision not to include critical habitat in recovery strategies--I'll quote--“in clear contravention of the law”. It was apparent in that judgment that the main reason the government delayed identifying critical habitat was that they prejudged, illegally, that there were socio-economic constraints. Again, we just have to get past that.

Then, on the last thing, which will lead to a question here, could you, Ms. Poter, give me, today or later, examples of enforcement of prohibitions against destroying critical habitat for any species under any agency, anywhere, at any time?

[Virginia Poter]

I'm not aware of enforcement actions yet, and it's a reflection of... As has been pointed out, there is not a lot of critical habitat that has been identified yet, but we're in train of doing so. I'm trying to explain. It's not that easy to identify it.

But I do want to flag for you, just on two points you made, that the draft policies really do speak to how critical habitat is based on the biological needs of the species, point final, and there's a clarification that socio-economic factors are not considered in the identification of critical habitat.

That lesson, I think, has been learned well. We're clear, and it is reflected in the draft policies that were out and will be finalized, so we're very much, I think, in the same place that you are.

On the caribou, if I could just give a short response, that's where I thought we were going several years ago, which was: “Here are your calving islands, give me a few corridors, and let's have a chunk here and we're done”. But that's not what the scientists advised. They are very clear: you need to manage at the level of the landscape and you need to allow such that the disturbance can move around, because that's part of the biology of the caribou. But you need to ensure that there's enough intact landscape at any one time. That's what we've been told. So the question is, how much is enough and what does it look like and so on? That's where we're at.

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

Maybe I need to not run in the next election and go back into caribou research and consultation again, because I thought that's where we were--

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you, Ms. Poter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You actually have about a minute left, Bruce, if you want it.

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

No. My rant is done. I just want to say that I think Ms. Poter in particular has been very lucid today.

Your sincerity comes through. I believe you care, and you're a very bright person, but my frustration with the entire agency remains. It's time to get on with identifying these critical habitats: make some hard decisions, step on a few toes, start saving some species, and turn this around.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you're batting cleanup.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I found this very interesting. I think each of us has.

I have more questions than I have time, so I'll try to be precise. I want to focus on two things. One is the time restraints and what are realistic times; it's very prescriptive to the minister. Also, what would be fair in compensation?

Before I get into that, I just want to make a quick comment on the importance of adequate notice to the public. I love to hike. With new technologies like GPS, if you're out hiking... Let's say you get out into an area and you use GPS, what if you had some sort of GPS warning that you were in a critical habitat area instead of having maps? A hiker might be using a five-year-old map that was handed to them from a friend or whoever. If hikers are using GPS, which is a very common tool when they're out, you could have a warning on there that would give you a little notice. Use of markers at the head of a trail may have very limited success, because you might be getting onto that trail by parking your car somewhere, and if you know a shortcut, you could miss all the markers.

I think that one of the big controversies at the beginning of SARA was fair market compensation for land. Mr. Trudeau touched on it. What if a good corporate citizen is going to restock a stream with a species that is at risk? If they restock the stream and that fish gets caught in a turbine, if there are no socio-economic considerations in critical habitat, you could have a multi-billion-dollar facility shut down permanently.

Under SARA, the only place right now that you have socio-economic considerations is where it's in the hands of the minister. That's my understanding. You do not have, through COSEWIC, the critical habitat.

I'm running out of time very quickly, but you mentioned extraordinary loss. What is the definition of “extraordinary” loss? Is it fair market compensation? I don't think so, because I think that was what was asked for at the beginning of SARA. SARA did get through and now it's under review, but could you give me the definition of “extraordinary” loss?

If a hydroelectric plant is going to have to be shut down because of an endangered species in that stream and it is in critical habitat, who is going to pay for the shutting down of that plant? Would that be extraordinary loss? What about a farmer who didn't realize, in plowing his field, that he had destroyed the habitat of a migratory bird? Is he now in big trouble? He didn't know the bird was there, but under SARA, under mens rea, he is still in big trouble.

In the very short period of time I've left you, I think those are two very big considerations that were concerns at the beginning of SARA, too.

[Virginia Poter]

If I may, I will just reflect on one comment that was made. The consideration of socio-economic factors is not done by the minister; it's by Governor in Council. I just want to make sure that is clear. It's not the minister alone who considers that.

For compensation, the definition of extraordinary loss is pretty key. It's not the only question, and that's what would need to be clarified, I believe, in regulation. I am not able to answer for you what would be meant by extraordinary loss. There are many ways to define it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

On the time restraints, they're very prescriptive. The minister has to report within a certain time of when the clock starts ticking. You get consultation with the provinces, territories, and first nations. Is that one of the stressors, one of the difficulties, in meeting these timeframes?

[Virginia Poter]

I would say again that our job as officials is to implement the act we've been given. Timelines are a challenge because there are many obligations that must be met within short periods of time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Am I all done, Mr. Chair?

I have just one quick comment. I see that Nature Canada is here, Chair. They gave me a trading card. It was a snail. I appreciate that they're here, and they do good work, but sometimes we have to move slowly, like a snail, and it has to be realistic so that we do protect those species.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I have one final question. In the assessment process that COSEWIC undertakes, do they look at the entire species internationally or do they look at specifically the herds that exist?

For example, there has been a lot of discussion today about woodland caribou, but what about the barren ground caribou in the north, particularly in the western Arctic and across into Alaska and Yukon? There are some concerns with migratory routes. Or you can look at how the western Hudson Bay polar bear herd is also in decline, but overall the worldwide polar bear population is static.

I'm just wondering about that. Are we going to go after the subspecies or the specific herd? Or are we looking at the bigger picture?

[Virginia Poter]

I'll try to be very brief. COSEWIC assessments are based on status in Canada, but when they're making that determination, there is some consideration of global status. You can have situations where it's deemed to be of special concern, threatened, or even endangered in Canada and perhaps only vulnerable--or even secure--globally. That's just the COSEWIC process.

[Pardeep Ahluwalia]

If I could just add to that, Chairman, as Virginia said, it's the Canadian population, but COSEWIC also looks to see whether there are actually subpopulations that should be assessed independently. We do have situations in which we have a single species but the COSEWIC assessment is by population, so we could end up and we do end up in situations where we'll have multiple assessments with multiple populations of a single species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. I know that I, for one, am glad to get back to work on SARA and the great work that I believe we're going to do as a committee in the review of the act. I'm looking forward to bringing those recommendations forward to Parliament.

With that, I'll now entertain a motion to adjourn.