Environment Committee on March 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Last summer I was out riding through the pastures with my daughter and we came across a painted turtle. I'd never seen one in my pasture before. I actually went back to the house and checked it on the Internet. The western painted turtle is quite abundant, but it is listed as a species at risk or of interest in British Columbia. Would B.C. have made that decision?

We're talking about range and whether or not certain species are worth protecting, especially if it's just a sub-species. The painted turtle is abundant across Canada, but within British Columbia it's a species of interest. I'm pretty sure it was actually on a federal website that I saw that. I just wanted to get comments on whether that is the case, or maybe it was a British Columbia decision.

[Virginia Poter]

I'm not exactly sure about the painted turtle status. I don't keep all 486 in my head. This may well be federally listed, but I don't believe so. However, on the way the legislation and the accord works, each jurisdiction can--and in many cases does--have their own endangered species or species at risk legislation. For example, in Quebec or B.C. they have legislation, and they may list species provincially that may or may not be listed federally. Even if it is listed provincially and federally, it may or may not be at the same status, because in one jurisdiction it may be highly endangered, and in another jurisdiction it may be of special concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We'll go to our third round of about four minutes each, in the interest of time.

Mr. Kennedy, you have the floor.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the deputants for their testimony. I think it's been helpful. You may still pick up a little frustration from people, in the sense that we're trying to come to a landing on what's possible here. In other words, will the act unbundle itself?

As the discussion on budget says, if we had $100 million going in, how much of that is going to dead-end process? How much of that has gone to laws that weren't properly formed into regulations that require processes on an ongoing basis that don't lead to a productive end?

The problem here is that if the implementers in the bureaucracy can't provide us with that, you're going to get inaccurate decisions made. After seven years of experience, I know that four or five of them might be just the catching up of the implementation initially of the act. We want to give some life to it.

I have two questions. I have a number, and I'll try to unbundle them for you.

Do you have faith that this will unbundle itself, in the sense that we'll have the serious boundaries we want and the process will be there? Are there intrinsic things in the way of that process smoothing itself out, being able to work with the other partners, and so on? Very specifically, are there dead-end elements here because of the way the act was designed that maybe were put in because there wasn't adequate protection in one place or another? We can deal with.... Maybe they were there for a good reason, but do you find in your implementation that you do a lot of things that just don't add to the net bottom line of protection? I assume that everybody at this table speaks for the protection of species.

[John Moffet]

I'll try to answer that.

Let me be clear that we don't have a mandate to come to you and say this part of the act is broken, or you should recommend fixing this part of the act or that part of the act. We can't do that. You've heard from witnesses. I do think, however, that we try to articulate some basic themes, principles, goals, directions that we share and most of the witnesses who appeared before you share. We believe that our job is to implement the act in those directions.

There are some basic policy choices that have been made about the direction in which we will push the implementation of the act. We're still working in that direction.

You've heard from many witnesses, and I think we've identified areas where we've bumped up against the limits of the legislation. They have to do with the prescriptive nature of the legislation that requires specific steps to be taken for every species that's listed, regardless of the nature of the threat, regardless of whether that species could be addressed better through an ecosystem approach, or through an approach that deals with a group of species that may in some cases require delaying action on that species so that we can take action on a group of species.

You've also heard about limits that we've bumped up against in terms of the objective of being able to work with partners, while also providing the kind of long-term certainty some commercial activities need in order to be willing to make commercial investments, and also to engage in best management practices on the land that may benefit more than just an individual listed species, but where the act itself only allows us, for example, to provide a three-year permit. I think we've identified there are both thematic limits and specific limits in the act.

In terms of our advice about what to change and what not to change, I apologize, but we can't go that far.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Kennedy, your time has expired. In the interest of fairness for the rest of the members, we'll continue.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to pick up on the aquatic species issue raised by the chair, Mr. Bezan. I think it is a very interesting area that would be worthy of an in-depth discussion. I would like to compare the Species at Risk Act and the Fisheries Act. As everyone knows, the Fisheries Act predates SARA. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act deals with the protection of fish habitat, and section 36 talks about the deposit of deleterious substances.

I would like to hear your interpretation of the December 7, 2010 ruling on protection statements. Do you think that, according to that decision, a protection statement must apply to aquatic species if the conditions are similar to those set out in SARA?

My question, therefore, is for the Environment Canada officials.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans issued a protection statement on killer whales in September 2008. Mr. Moffet, referring the question to Mr. Stringer suggests that the federal government is of the opinion that, in light of the December 7, 2010 ruling, if DFO establishes protection statement conditions equivalent to those set out in SARA, the Fisheries Act applies.

Basically, I want to hear your opinion on that, because it covers quite a significant portion of the species requiring protection.

[Kevin Stringer]

As I said, part of that is still before the courts, specifically the relationship between the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act, and the application, so I really can't speak to that.

I can tell you that we have contemplated significantly the relationship between the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act. In a number of species where we managed the fisheries under the Fisheries Act—and I'll use the examples of cod and salmon—the link between the Species at Risk Act and the Fisheries Act is enormously complex, not least of which because of the issue of bycatch. In the fisheries, as opposed to terrestrial species, the issue of bycatch is gigantic. It's pretty much impossible to go fishing for Atlantic halibut and not catch cod. Even if it's a small number, then you're breaking the Species at Risk Act. We've contemplated that.

With respect to the very specific issue you've asked about, I believe that's still before the court, so I can't speak to it, but it is an important issue and one we're attending to carefully.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Bells are ringing. Standing Order 115(5) says: “Notwithstanding Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5), the Chair of a standing, special, legislative or joint committee shall suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division, unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee to continue to sit.”

Is there unanimous consent to finish off our rounds? You guys are okay, but I need unanimous consent to do it. Do I have unanimous consent to sit to finish off the last few questioners? We are within five minutes of the House.

Seeing that nobody is saying no, we will continue with this and finish with the last two questioners.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There has been a lot of discussion about this interest in working with partners. There has also been a lot of discussion about all of the steps necessary to go through in SARA. And there is also the issue that Mr. Bigras, in his usual informative fashion, has introduced—the idea of the relationship between other statutes.

Environment Canada, DFO, and Parks Canada have the power to intervene in environmental impact assessments and to look at cumulative impact assessments. So you don't have to sit and wait for something to be listed. I haven't heard any mention of that.

If you had partners and a lot of people interested in moving forward, and if by some miracle the provincial government was willing to work with you, is it possible that under the statute you could expedite the process? In many cases that's what came out of a lot of these court decisions. The government was saying they couldn't identify the critical habitat, but it was evident that under the definition of the term it had already been identified.

I'm a little frustrated to hear that as a result of the court action the government went out and again started to identify critical habitat, when it was known that oil and gas was one of the major impacts on the sage grouse mating.

We now hear that despite the boreal agreement, which is lauded as a great agreement with all partners working together, there is now a logging permit about to be issued in the area where the logging company agreed to protect the habitat.

Does it not make more sense to have the legislated regulatory initiatives by the government operating in tandem with the partnerships? In most cases those partnerships are not binding and enforceable. It puts the species at further risk when we have to take another 10 or 20 years for the government to do its work.

[John Moffet]

We have to manage so that we deliver on the legal obligations and also engender partnerships. There are instances of partnerships that haven't worked out. But one of the things we're trying to bring to your attention is the way in which relationships with partners were chilled by early interpretations of the act on our part together with misperceptions of the act on the part of others. What we're trying to do is overcome that chilling. This would allow us to move to the front end of the process and encourage activities that would make it unnecessary to implement the act. The ideal is to take preventive actions through partnerships.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Are the officials working in endangered species being consulted in the cumulative impact assessments of major resource development?

[Virginia Poter]

I can speak for Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service staff who are part of Environment Canada contribute to advice provided on environmental assessments that are coordinated across the department. We take into account species at risk as well as migratory birds.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Wong, given that you have neighbouring communities, often agricultural—for example, I live right next to Riding Mountain National Park—do you ever think you'll see the day when Parks Canada funding will go outside a national park to assist local stewardship programs that local people are trying to initiate with other partners?

[Mike Wong]

Certainly. With respect to species at risk, there are existing funds such as the habitat stewardship program, the aboriginal fund for species at risk, and interdepartmental recovery funds. So at Parks Canada, when we work with our partners outside, we explore the possibility of using these funds in order to enhance the recovery of species at risk. Of course, given that our funding is focused on the management of national parks and national historic sites, it is a challenge for us to move beyond our borders.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I understand that, but Parks Canada is always talking about working with local communities and how what goes on outside the park affects what happens inside the park, and vice-versa. Yet the funding seems to stop at the park boundary. But that's something for folks like us to work on.

My second question regards litigation that is possible under the Species at Risk Act. In terms of what's happening in the U.S., with whole communities shutting down because of the draconian implementation of their endangered species act—I'm thinking of irrigation in California, the spotted owl issue in Oregon--carried to a logical or illogical conclusion, would the shutting down of whole communities be possible under this act were things to carry in that particular direction?

To be really simple, can the spotted owl thing happen in Canada?

[Virginia Poter]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar exactly with what's happened in the United States, so it's hard to comment--

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

What has happened is because of the listing of the spotted owl in Washington and Oregon, thousands of logging jobs were lost, ostensibly to bring back this endangered species.

I'm asking, if litigation under SARA were carried out far enough in Canada, would the same thing be possible in Canada whereby a listing results in basically the essential destruction of a local resource-based economy?

[John Moffet]

I don't think we can speculate on the ultimate outcome of decisions that are not strictly limited to listing. Again, there are decisions as to how to implement, and of course the particular impact on forest-based communities extends beyond certain environmental statutes, and there's a global kind of downturn in the forest sector at large.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming in today to give us an update, a briefing, especially for our new members.

Mr. Warawa, do you have an update you can share with us about whether or not the minister is available?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, the minister is scheduled to be here on March 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That is to deal with supplementary estimates (C), which our motion was very specific to. As you know, supplementary estimates (C) only really cover a few areas of the budget.

The meeting is adjourned.