Environment Committee on March 1st, 2011

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

That's fine. That information can be given back to the committee. It's just in the sense that it gives us a sense of what's possible. I think a great part of what we've heard—and I think you still hear it—is genuine inquiry on the part of members as to whether this can be made to work. If the application of resources or if the knowledge or so on does that, I think we would be very interested to know that, because that might bear some guidance for us.

I wonder if I can turn to another question here—and this is not meant to separate these things. I hope that members will all bear with me. Essentially, the act is meant to give us a biological basis to be concerned, and then a process to translate that concern into some reasonable actions. Obviously we don't want to ideologically, politically, or with our relatively limited knowledge bases be debating politically whether or not a species has patterns and so on that could lead to extirpation or to damaged success.

I think that is clear. The way I want to ask this is if you think there needs to be political judgment. In other words, there is a mediation here between economic and environmental goals. Ideally we would reconcile and we'd say that economic stuff has to bend this way and bend that way, and so on. There would be a conservation strategy here and so forth. Instead, as soon as we hear it's an either/or, then we're lost.

It was mentioned that socio-economic stuff is taken into account in the listing decision. Has there not been any sort of summary of what those things are? Because the minister I guess has that ability to take those things into account to list or not list. You have to put those things in front of the minister and say what the trade-offs could be when it comes to these other realms. By now, there should be some kind of pattern. The word is “competent ministers”, and I'm sure that's a generally applicable and deserved term for folks. The rate of listing from COSEWIC is fairly high. I think that's the case. So those factors haven't necessarily got in the way entirely, but I guess the question is we didn't need to figure out what to do with that trade-off. I'm wondering if there has been any quantification of the kinds of trade-offs that have been taken into account here.

I know that's kind of a rephrasing of my earlier question, and the answer was that there wasn't a study, but clearly that information is being collected. Every time there is a decision, the socio-economic impacts are being taken into account; the departments are coming up with them. Has no one brought together all the impacts that we have to deal with? And almost more important is the way to reconcile, the way to try to seek trade-offs and so on. Is that not part of the decision that you as the relevant staff bring before a minister?

[John Moffet]

I'm not sure I can directly answer your question, but I'll attempt.

First, I think you're asking if we have data that enables us to understand the impact of socio-economic considerations, for example, on certain decisions. In effect, I think the best data that we have was presented to this committee, and it wasn't generated by us. It was generated by the University of Ottawa concerning listing patterns.

As you observe correctly, the vast majority of species have been listed, and the delays have occurred primarily with respect to species that are commercially farmed or used, and species that occur in the north, where there may be some traditional or ceremonial importance attached to those species. In both cases, of course, additional considerations need to be applied to not just the listing but the actions that are taken with respect to the species.

But I think this goes to a more fundamental point. I apologize if I'm oversimplifying your point, but you suggested that some of the witnesses presented a dichotomy or a choice between commercial activities and protection of species. I think that what we're learning in the act, through the act, and what we're struggling to implement in the act is to eliminate that false dichotomy.

In some cases, of course, very hard decisions have to be made, and trade-offs have to be made. But this comes back to my response to Mr. Sopuck. I think what we want to move to in the act is rapid action, which is not always taken by the government. What we need is rapid action taken by the most effective actor on the ground. What we have is a very prescriptive act that requires us to do certain things in every case, and that has created an impression that we will be taking this action no matter what. That has created, actually, in some cases a resistance from some of our partners, whereas what we want to do—and indeed what we're moving towards—is a set of policies and a set of interactions with our partners that inculcate a different kind of relationship so that we can get ahead of the curve, so that we can move faster, and we can take better action on the ground.

But this is clearly not easy, and it's something we're wrestling with as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. If I have any time left over, I would like to give it to Mr. Sopuck. I really appreciated his questioning and what was coming from that.

We heard that the goal is to delist species that are listed. We heard that SARA came into force on June 1, 2004, so it's just under seven years that it's been in force. We heard this morning that $312 million have been spent with no positive results yet. It's not been from a lack of effort; it's whether the money has been effectively spent.

Looking back to SARA being established as legislation in Canada, it was very controversial. One of the promises that was made by a previous Liberal government was that there would be compensation for rural farmers. Mr. Sopuck talked about the importance of partnership and that there would be incentives so you can have those partnerships built. To this point, that hasn't happened. Unfortunately, that was a promise broken by a previous government.

You highlighted that you listened to what the witnesses shared. They all recommended that there be some changes because they acknowledge SARA isn't working. They don't want to see SARA scrapped, but changes are needed. Some said the timelines were too prescriptive, that they didn't allow adequate time for consultation. Some said they're not prescriptive enough and that we need to tighten the timelines and remove any discretion for consultation by the minister.

We talked about socio-economic factors. We heard that from the witnesses also. Some thought that was important; some thought it should be totally science-based.

On the importance of critical habitat, you said that in a vast majority of cases it is biologically science-based, yet we heard from Mr. Sopuck that it may not be critical habitat that's the issue. I think you also mentioned that.

I have three questions on how we can make SARA more effective. Your responsibility is to implement SARA and not to create policy, but you are on the front line, so I think the committee would value your input in hearing about some of your challenges in implementing SARA. After $312 million, and seven years later, we don't really have anything to show for it, other than paper. How do we make it more effective and practical?

Being very prescriptive isn't working. Would it be helpful to consider an ecosystem-based approach, supported at each step under SARA, from the assessment of COSEWIC, to the recovery planning, action, and monitoring?

My second question is what type of flexibility would be appropriate in ensuring accountability and transparency?

Third, how do we encourage partnership? I think that was what Mr. Sopuck was starting to ask questions on: how we can encourage partnership. We heard from people with hydroelectric dams that, as good partners, they introduced fish back into the stream, and now if one of those fish ends up in the turbines they are in big trouble. So how do we encourage partnership instead of punishing partnership?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You've taken four and a half minutes to ask your three questions.

I'll give the officials a chance to respond.

[Mike Wong]

Perhaps I can start with the conversation on the ecosystem-based approach. Within our agency we have had some experience with implementation of SARA using this approach. There are a couple of examples I'd like to highlight for the committee.

There is the work we're doing in coastal British Columbia, in particular within the Garry oak ecosystem. Within this ecosystem there are numerous species at risk, and as COSEWIC continues to evaluate new species there are more added into the hopper, if you will, within this Garry oak ecosystem.

We have been working within Parks Canada land, as well as with other federal departments and the Province of British Columbia and landowners, in helping the recovery of these species. Rather than look at it in a single, species by species approach, we're looking at it from the standpoint of the recovery of this overall Garry oak ecosystem, which will include plants and shrubs as well as insects and other species. So it's quite a large variety of species that we're dealing with within the overall conservation plan.

The real key and the efficiencies within the ecosystem approach lie in the development of partnerships, whether with the province or with landowners outside the federal lands. It's really a case whereby we are having these discussions, coming up with common recovery goals, and working together to implement these recovery goals. A good example is that within the Garry oak ecosystem we have activities whereby we're engaging the local community and provincial agencies in removing one of the biggest threats to the Garry oak species, which is invasive species such as the Scotch broom out in British Columbia. In fact, we are engaging large numbers of volunteers to help us restore that habitat so that it becomes able to help this variety of species to recover.

Right now, within the Garry oak ecosystem we are looking at the recovery of 43 species. So we are moving away from the species-by-species approach and are looking at greater efficiencies and greater engagement of similar partners and stakeholders.

Another example is within Grasslands National Park, where we're looking at the recovery of the sage grouse, the swift fox, the short horn lizard—all at the same time—within that national park ecosystem.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Since the last time you were here, I have noticed that the questions and discussion have shifted away from the scientific aspect and now focus almost exclusively on the economic side of things.

I would like to refer to something you said earlier. You said that the $312 million had not produced any positive results and that the money would be misused if left there. Mr. Wong's answer ties in with my question.

There are species in my riding that have been listed as “species at risk”. I saw that Environment Canada did not even take them into account, rather, the community as a whole did. That was not mentioned. I think you shot yourself in the foot earlier when you said that there was nothing to show for the $312 million that was spent.

I take issue with that, and I would like to hear your comments. The community has produced results. People realized that certain species needed to be saved. They joined forces with farmers, lobby groups, and hunting and fishing groups. They worked with all the groups on site. So I would not say that $312 million was wasted in my riding, or even $1 million. I think your financial investment did indeed help to protect an ecosystem.

And I would like some confirmation from you that we did see those kinds of results.

[Virginia Poter]

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my point.

When I was responding to Mr. Sopuck, I had understood the question to be, for the money that had been provided, what species had recovered whose recovery was completely attributable to SARA. At this point in time, we can't point to that.

But as you point out, Monsieur Ouellet, the actions that start to occur now through programs such as the habitat stewardship program, which fosters development of green bylaws for municipalities and fosters community efforts whereby they'll go in and pull out weeds that don't belong in a particular ecosystem and so on—really facilitating engagement by a broader community—definitely make a difference.

So I very much appreciate the opportunity to clarify my point. We have made a fair bit of difference on the ground, I believe, through programs such as the habitat stewardship program.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

I would like you to clarify something else for me.

Earlier, we discussed land that was privately versus publicly owned. I would like to know whether the species belong to the private land owners if the animals are on their property. In other words, if frogs are on private land and the next year wind up on public land eating things that the owner does not approve of, do those frogs belong to the private land owner or to the community's overall ecosystem?

I would like you to make that clear because we are having a similar debate in my riding involving deer. Some say that if the deer are on their land, they belong to them. I disagree, but I would like you to clarify that point.

[John Moffet]

I'll answer that question indirectly. The act does not address ownership. What the act does is establish protection of species, and that protection arrives in different ways and has different status depending on the species itself and its location. If the species is on federal land, then certain protections apply automatically. If the species is not on federal land, then the nature of the protection depends on whether the species is subject to federal jurisdiction or not. Then, of course, additional protection may apply as we work our way through the process in the act developing recovery strategies and action plans, working with partners, including importantly the provinces, and then ultimately, in extreme cases, possibly making a determination as to the effectiveness of the protection that the province has applied.

I apologize; it's not just a question of ownership. But there is an important question as to what protections there are, or in other words what restrictions are placed on the ability of a private person, for example, to do something to that species, its residence, its habitat. I can't tell you more than that it depends: it depends on the species and it depends on the location of the species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Calkins, you have the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I've had plenty of opportunity to discuss this in the past, but I will just ask one quick question as I go through the schedules, and then I'll hand my time over to Mr. Sopuck.

You mention in your opening comments, Ms Poter, the intrinsic value of nature and so on. I don't think anybody comes to Canada to look at the Nooksack dace. I'm pretty sure they don't come over to look at the brook lamprey. I'm not so sure the three-spined stickleback is one of those economic driving forces in our country, given the fact that you can find a nine-spined stickleback in virtually every lake and river in the western basin.

I'm being a bit facetious here, but I do believe that when Canadians look at a species at risk act, they're asking themselves, is my government stepping in when we're down to the last 30, or the last 50, or the last whatever? This act, in my opinion, steps in way too soon. That might be nice from a preventative perspective, but I'll make the case, and I've made it before, that if we had looked at just the population of the Fraser River sockeye salmon prior to last year or for the previous two or three years, COSEWIC could have easily made an assessment that the Fraser River sockeye salmon population could have been classified as endangered, and yet last year we had one of the best returns in, I think, a century.

Given what we know, given the various life cycles.... Certain organisms reproduce in a matter of hours; other organisms, such as bears, reach the age of eight to ten years before they're sexually mature. The act has a prescription to do things in a certain timeline that simply doesn't make sense with the way nature operates at all.

I'm very frustrated with the way the act is being used. I think your people's hands are tied. I think you have a really tough job. I want you to be open and frank and honest with us here at this committee. I know sometimes you want to be careful about what you say, but just give it to us; just hit us over the head with it. I think everybody around this table wants to do the right thing with this legislation to make sure that it's usable and functional and serves the needs of not only the environment but of the Canadian taxpayers at all.

Mr. Sopuck asked you a question. Are there any examples you can give us of areas in which the department has spent money on a strategy or on an assessment of a particular species whose geographical range is outside or beyond Canada's borders as well as within Canada's borders and in which the bulk of the population or the natural habitat or the natural range is not within Canada's boundaries, and in which we may have spent any money on an assessment or strategy to recover a species of which a subset or—notwithstanding migratory species—a smaller segment of that population lives within the Canadian jurisdiction? Are there any examples?

[Virginia Poter]

I'm sorry, I can't provide one to you. I certainly could provide one in follow-up. There are examples of what we call fringe species: the northern edge of the range of that species tips into Canada, so the bulk of the range is south of the border, for example.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

As a typical example, you might find four specimens of a vascular plant at Point Pelee, which is the southern-most tip in Canada, and yet you'll find a couple of million of these things--a billion of these things-- living perhaps in the continental United States or wherever.

Are we spending money on doing assessments on those kinds of things? Is that because of the nature of the act?

[Virginia Poter]

Yes.

I wouldn't speak necessarily to the millions versus four plants. But the concept can happen that we may have a very small proportion, say 2% or less, of the population in the world in Canada, and our population is more at threat than the populations in other parts of the world. Yes, given that they are on the list, resources were dedicated to assess them. Then resources will be dedicated to develop a recovery strategy for them as well, or a management plan, as the case may be.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm just going to ask you a couple of questions. I have a limited amount of time left.

[Mike Wong]

Could I just I very quickly add to that response?

Let's use the Point Pelee example where we have a species called the tiger salamander. It's not been seen in the park since 1919. We produced a very brief, succinct report and it recommends that it would not be successful in terms of recovering that species so we didn't spend any more money on that.

Another example would be the prickly pear cactus. It's a listed species within the legislation. It was one that was reviewed by COSEWIC, yet, as you pointed out in your example, across Lake Erie in the State of Ohio it is considered a weed. We're not spending any more money in terms of helping it recover because it is at the limit of its range. We are spending money on the priority species that we feel have a good chance of recovery.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Scarpalleggia. No? Okay.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to Mr. Calkins' comment about everyone around the table wanting to do the right thing. I agree completely that my view of the right thing I think is very, very different from Mr. Calkins', because I don't share the view that we intervene too soon and that there are species that we should just write off because tourists don't come to see them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Point of order.

I usually give people great liberty to say what they want to say around here, but at no time during the transcript did I say, ever, that we would write off a species. Those were not my words. You can try to paraphrase if you want, Ms. Murray, but if you want to do these kinds of things then I will start calling questions of privilege if you're going to try to put words in my mouth.

Mr. Chair, this is unacceptable. I certainly didn't make any reference to any other members here at this table during my deliberations. I said nothing about that. I simply spoke about how it affects my constituency. I certainly didn't make any attempt to disparage anybody around this table. I'm getting a little tired of it, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are respectful to the other members of the committee. It's fine to make comments about your points of view, but--

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just note that when someone speaks on my behalf, which was included in his comments, I need to be able to clarify whether I agree with that or not, which is what I did.

I was very struck by Mr. Moffet's comment that what you're looking for is rapid action, not necessarily by government. I'm familiar with the complexity of the different orders of government working together with communities, with non-profit groups, with first nations, and with scientists. It's very critical that there's a collaborative approach. I've seen that in the south Okanagan-Similkameen conservation, Garry oak, etc., a number in British Columbia.

Mr. Moffet, what is the main barrier? Given that there are those two forces pulling at you--rapid action, not necessarily by government, but how powerful partnerships are, and how much gets done by people working together with a common objective--what are the barriers to rapid action? What are some thoughts that the panellists might have about recommendations that you would like to see in our report that address these challenges?

[John Moffet]

I think that's an excellent question. There are some very fundamental decisions, if you will, that the committee needs to make about the kind of advice it provides to government about the act.

I think we have tried to suggest to you that in implementing the act and in the learning process we've gone through, we've struggled to balance a number of things. One, of course, is the environmental protection imperative in the act. The other is the enabling of partnerships and the provision of long-term predictability to our partners. That occurs no matter what the environmental legislation is; that's a common theme across all of our legislation. The relative emphasis we place on those two is something that this committee should--if you don't mind me giving advice--comment on. And advice is needed.

The additional challenge that this particular piece of legislation poses to us is the highly prescriptive nature of the legislation and the requirements to take a very process-specific set of steps for every species. There are important judgments that government needs to make, and that we make on a day-to-day basis in terms of our implementation of the act.

As my colleague Mr. Wong has explained, it's not that our hands are completely tied. Of course we make judgments. When a species has been listed but does not exist, is there any merit in taking additional action? No. But we've had to go through certain steps to get there, and we have expended taxpayers' dollars to get to that point.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay.

Perhaps you or one of the other officials could clarify this. When you say that some of that...what I think you're referring to as the linear, the step-by-step, when you say “prescriptive”. What is the description of an approach to that aspect of it that would better meet the goals that would serve the objective of the act?