Environment Committee on March 1st, 2011

[John Moffet]

Here, I'm afraid, we're getting on thin ice for officials. I think we're trying to outline for you some thematic concepts that you may want to consider. Whether that translates into specific implementation directions that we take, or indeed into some legislative reforms, those are decisions that the committee needs to take rather than us.

We have tried to suggest that we're trying to go in a certain direction where we adhere to the legal requirements but provide the folks implementing the act with the ability to work with partners, and focus on priorities, and focus on actions that will make the most difference for perhaps the ecosystem or a collection of species, as opposed to a slavish focus on each individual species regardless of its priority, regardless of its ecological priority.

How far we take that, whether that's the right direction, whether we can do that through implementation, whether law reform is needed--those are the critical issues that this committee is wrestling with, I think, and where we need your advice.

[Kevin Stringer]

They're issues that public servants are struggling with as well. We have an example that our colleague from Parks spoke to, about trying to take an ecosystem approach. We have a couple in Fisheries, where we've tried to do it and lumped together species into one recovery plan, one recovery strategy for both.

You've asked us about the lessons learned. The big lesson learned is that it does require partnerships to be able to address these issues. We don't have all the jurisdictions or all the means to be able to address it. The incentives to get partners to the table, given some of the prescriptive nature of the act, has been a challenge.

That said, it is an act that is supposed to be protecting species. That's the balance that I think John is referring to. A couple of people have spoken to a couple of examples. On the Columbia River, for example, some of the partners we've worked with have provided an enormous amount of funds and support to be able to reintroduce or support species at risk, and yet our act suggests that if one fish--a 1.8, I think, in this case--is lost a year, then they are potentially charged. It does make it somewhat difficult for them to be at the table.

That said, we do have good partners. We do have good relationships. It can always be better, and that's the challenge we're facing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr. Armstrong, your turn.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

Thank you all for your presentations this morning.

I have two quick questions and then I'm going to try to cede my time to Mr. Sopuck. On the first one I just want to clear things up for myself and maybe others. It does discuss the prescriptive nature of the legislation currently, and also concerning the open range of species in Canada that may just exist over the Canadian-U.S. border, in particular.

Does the department, under the current legislation, have the leeway to decide whether to intervene if a species is at risk in Canada but is plentiful just over the border in the United States? Is that currently the leeway you have in the act, or is that something we should consider as a recommendation for part of this review?

[John Moffet]

The critical decision that triggers action under the act is listing. The Governor in Council has discretion as to whether to list a species. Once a species is listed certain steps have to be taken. For the level of effort that we provide to each step, of course there is broad discretion, and that's what Mr. Wong was describing. A species was listed, we took the necessary steps, but the action that we took in the step we think was commensurate with the level of risk and the importance of the issue. But the fundamental discretion there has to do with listing the species or not.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

My second question is more of a budgetary one. We heard that $312 million has been spent so far in implementing this legislation, roughly $40 million a year. What's the current budget per year of implementing SARA? Can anyone elaborate on that?

[John Moffet]

At the moment the federal government has allocated across the three organizations--and it's important to emphasize that there are three, Parks Canada, Fisheries, and the Department of the Environment--approximately $100 million per year up until next spring, at which point in time some of the funding expires.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

You discussed early in your presentation that you've ramped up, you have staffed up, you have processes in place, and there has been some learning from experience, as there would be when any new piece of legislation is implemented. Wouldn't you now see the cost of it, per year, going down, or is that determined literally by how many species we're dealing with per year? What are the cost pressures you face in implementing this legislation? That's basically what I'm asking.

[John Moffet]

There are a couple of important factors. Yes, we have invested a lot in staffing up, in developing policies, and frankly in working our way through the legislation, in learning how to prepare cabinet for listing decisions, in learning how to do recovery strategies, and fundamentally in working with our partners. The partnerships predated the act, but now we have to engage in a different relationship based on the presence of the act. So there are lots of upfront investments. You could say on the one hand those investments were made, the foundation has been built, and now we can focus on the structure of the building.

On the other hand, the volume of work is increasing. We are now at the point where we are just tipping the scales in terms of the number of recovery strategies that we're developing or promulgating per year versus the number of new species that are being listed. It's going to take us a while to eat into that backlog that we inherited when the act was brought into force. Additional species are being listed each year. And finally, of course, in a couple of years COSEWIC will start through a mandatory re-evaluation of species that have been listed. So the annual burden continues to grow.

And then of course once you've listed a species, developed a recovery strategy, and developed an action plan, you don't just walk away from it. Notwithstanding my earlier comment that one of the things we're trying to do is encourage action on the ground by partners, the federal government can't walk away from all of those activities. We need to continue to have staff engaged. We may need to continue to fund partners. We need to monitor. You can't walk away from a species that's been listed. So the overall burden is growing even as we've enhanced our efficiencies and put in place the appropriate kinds of foundational activities.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

[Kevin Stringer]

I would note as well that those recovery strategies and the action plans all include further work that should be done. They commit us and they commit others to do this science piece, that policy piece, this program piece, and in the meantime we get a new batch every year of species to start the process. And that, I think, is where the bulk of the financial support is required going forward, in terms of implementing those recovery strategies and action plans.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired.

The last of the second round is Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'll give my time to Mr. Sopuck.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Sopuck.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to just again reinforce what Ms. Poter said. My earlier question was very specific to her about how many species have actually been recovered, and she answered it quite appropriately, in my view.

I'm a big fan of the habitat stewardship program. In my own constituency I have a number of HSP programs, especially if the HSP also includes a management component whereby landowners or agriculturalists are able to do management activities that not only enhance their own bottom line in their farms but also recover species. To me that's the ideal form of conservation.

My first question regarding the HSP would be that right now there's a specific endangered species trigger to release funds under the HSP—I think I'm correct in that. What I hear you say is that you prefer sort of, if I could say, an ecosystem trigger, whereby an HSP project would have positive ecosystem results for a multitude of species. Is that the direction you would recommend we move in?

[Virginia Poter]

Currently the habitat stewardship program and AFSAR can accommodate an ecosystem approach. Every year the selection of projects is done regionally, and we do try to identify what are the hot spots for a particular species at risk, trying to come at it in a more strategic way. In the early days it was quite a bit about each individual project, but as we've built up awareness as to what's happening across the landscape, we're better able to sort of focus in on what types of actions or what types of projects would best benefit species at risk. So we've updated criteria for assessing project proponents' proposals.

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

In terms of the HSP, I would assume that within the overall budgetary envelope, in terms of activities that the various departments do, a certain amount is related to administration, enforcement, and all that stuff, and then there's project funding under the HSP. I suppose it's possible to reorient the budgetary priorities and increase the budgetary allocation for the habitat stewardship program, and given that we're in the time of restraint, to decrease the enforcement activities by an equal amount. What I'm getting at is I would assume there's potential to reorient the priorities.

[Virginia Poter]

We certainly can reorient priorities, and we have done so for the program.

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

Right. Okay, because that's certainly a direction I would like to go in. Again, habitat stewardship, working with people on the land and listing them as allies in the conservation of endangered species, is far more effective than the enforcement approach, keeping in mind if you're down to the last 30 individuals, obviously it becomes a rescue operation. I think we can safely say that apart from species like the woodland caribou, the endangered species action is primarily on the privately owned agricultural landscape, given how intense agricultural land use can be. Again, I think the private land areas of Canada are the areas where we should focus and really use the habitat stewardship program approach as the primary goal.

Regarding Mr. Ouellet's question about the ownership of wildlife, I will certainly concede that to me the answer is very simple: that wildlife is a publicly owned resource. To me there's no question about that.

In terms of the definition of habitat, it's a pretty elastic thing. We tend to think that habitat is just something you put lines around: that's critical habitat, and this is non-critical habitat. Again, with certain agricultural activities, with zero tillage, for example, we end up with monoculture wheat fields that are managed without tillage, and lo and behold, you get all kinds of species nesting there. Because the land is not disturbed, we end up with some endangered species or rarer species coming back because of that land use.

One can also look at peregrine falcons in downtown cities. All of a sudden does that become critical habitat? I think that's a silly example, but nevertheless a legal definition of these kinds of things gets us into all kinds of trouble, and that's where an ecosystem approach is much more appropriate.

Given that's the case, will the department consider other tools to recover endangered species, such as actively encouraging nesting structures for burrowing owls, for example, or support for predator control when predators have gone out of whack? And I think the wolf predation on woodland caribou is a big factor. Will you consider these other tools, apart from a very narrow definition of habitat?

[Virginia Poter]

Yes. All three departments, in developing a recovery strategy, look at the threats in terms of what is causing the decline or threatening the species at risk under discussion. So we would look. In some cases, it's habitat--loss, fragmentation, or the poor quality of the habitat available. But in other cases it might be disease. In other cases it might be disturbance of beach fronts--I'm thinking of the piping plover--and so on. Different species face different threats. The 486 species are all different. They all have their own biology. They all face their own threats, depending on where they are located across the country. So management actions are definitely a key piece in how to recover a species.

Speaking to the legal description of “critical habitat”, if you are going to have a legal description of “critical habitat”, you need to be able to define it in specific terms. That's just part of the implementation of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

I just want to follow up on Mr. Sopuck's question.

Ms. Poter, you mentioned the piping plover, which actually occurs in a habitat in my riding. Lake Winnipeg, which has an abundance of beaches, is a critical habitat for the piping plover. Manitoba Hydro manages the lake levels through the Jenpeg Dam at the north end of the lake. If they keep the lake artificially high and it is affecting the habitat that's necessary for piping plover, would they be in contradiction, then, of the act and possibly at risk...? We always talk about hydro in relation to fish species, but here we are with them at the ultimate...they have an environmental permit to use Lake Winnipeg as a reservoir. Would they be in a potential conflict so that they could be fined or directed to lower the lake levels?

[Virginia Poter]

In situations like this, we try to build awareness so that at certain times of the year it's not a problem for the piping plover that the dam is keeping the reservoir at high levels and essentially, I guess, covering the piping plover habitat. At other times of the year it is more important that the water level be lower. And we try to work with the key stakeholders to inform them so that they can use best management practices to accommodate the needs of the species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have two other questions I want to ask.

In your testimony and in response to some of the committee members' questions, you mentioned the direction we've had from the courts. There have been at least three or four decisions in the last few years that impact not only the.... We're talking around the table here about social and economic conditions versus protection of critical habitat, from a scientific basis. It's my understanding that the direction from the courts has been that habitat trumps social and economic conditions. So I want to get feedback on that, on how the two departments are viewing those decisions and the direction we're receiving from the federal courts.

The second point is with regard to a decision that was made about the habitat of the orca and the conflict that has risen between the Fisheries Act and SARA itself. How has that changed the focus of how you deal with habitat, especially when it comes to species in the water?

[Virginia Poter]

I'll start with sage grouse, and I'll leave the aquatic cases to my colleague from DFO.

The sage grouse is an interesting case. The decision really was clarifying. I think we already had a sense that this was where it was. But regardless of where critical habitat occurs, it should be identified, based on best available information. So we may not know a lot about where a species occurs, but when we know where it occurs we are to identify it, presuming the habitat has the required features that species need to survive and recover.

In the case of sage grouse, it was clear we had to identify critical habitat beyond the boundaries of the park. We did so. What that meant was we went out and engaged with a lot of private landowners, held public meetings, sent out lots of letters, and so on, just to make those private landowners aware of the fact that their lands had some of the key habitat for sage grouse.

In part of our communications certainly what resonated with the agricultural sector was that what they were doing was clearly compatible or very likely compatible with the needs of that species, because it existed there. So as long as the farmers continued to farm as they had been, it would be very compatible for the sage grouse. They could persist in that landscape while agricultural activity was being undertaken.

Kevin, do you want to...?

[Kevin Stringer]

On the aquatic side, some of this stuff is still before the courts, so I have to be very careful about what comments I make, particularly about the Fisheries Act piece of it.

Three or four decisions have come down that have provided direction that our department and the others are reflecting on, partly around best available information. The second area is around when you need a protection order, when you can use a protection statement, and when it's appropriate to move forward in either of those two areas.

Perhaps most significantly, we are reflecting on what's included in habitat. What do you need to consider when you're defining critical habitat? It says it's not just a geographic area; it is availability of prey. In the case of the killer whale it includes aquatics generally, but also acoustics, etc. We're now going back to look at the protection statements and protection orders we've issued and reflect on whether they are sufficient. Going forward we will have to think about those pieces as well. It makes it more complex, but the courts have decided those things.