Environment Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Patrick McGuinness]

It certainly hasn't helped, if that's the question in terms of.... There is a concern. I mean, it's an ecosystem. It's an ecosystem, and if you have more seals in the area, they will basically eat what becomes available. So as the cod comes back there is a concern that its natural productivity, if you will, would not be as high as it would be if in fact the seal population were lower.

The seal population was at 2 million. That was quite sustainable. It has grown to 5 million to 6 million now. They have to eat, right? So there is that type of negative impact in terms of the rate of increase.

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

So in your opinion and that of your members, support for a continued seal hunt would help that cod stock recover, thereby helping one of our protected species recover.

[Patrick McGuinness]

I don't represent the sealers. There is the Canadian Sealers Association. I represent the fishing industry, and basically our interest, of course, is the rejuvenation of the fish species. There is no question in our minds, as I explained, that seal hunting is a legitimate endeavour in terms of seal hunting, and that we, as a fishing industry, do receive some residual benefit with respect to the predator-prey relationship.

It's the same thing in B.C., where there is a big issue with harbour seals and their impact on Pacific salmon. That's a growing issue.

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

I have a second question for you, Mr. McGuinness. In your written submission, you suggested, “The ability to sell an at-risk species caught as an authorized by-catch under a recovery strategy should be allowed in certain cases”.

How do we allow that without actually encouraging a bycatch of a species at risk?

[Patrick McGuinness]

In my introduction, I just said there had to be mitigation and things of that nature. Fortunately--or unfortunately--we are one of the most heavily regulated industries in Canada. Fisheries are federally regulated and there are fisheries officers and things of that nature.

So what you can do is to introduce fishing protocols. Basically you would get a permit, and the permit would specify what you had to do if you caught a bycatch of a listed species. So if you caught some listed species in your bycatch, you would keep them but would then have to take some action; generally what we find is that it has to travel at least three miles from that point of contact.

All we're saying asking here is, why waste food? For example, with wolffish, we're saying that we don't need to sell that fish because it is a listed species. We do harvest it from time to time in incidental bycatch. We take the moving action, but at the same time we can return that fish to the water because of the nature of the fish and the nature of that fishery.

But our concern, looking to the future, is in regard to species listed by COSEWIC for further analysis that are such deep sea-living species that we could not return them live to the sea.

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

Thank you.

Mr. de Vries, other witnesses who have appeared before us have indicated that the ecosystem or multi-species approaches to recovery planning is the way to go. What are your views on this?

[Andrew de Vries]

I think under the right circumstances it's an effective tool, yes.

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

How do you see a multi-species approach working in light of the need to identify a critical habitat that SARA seems to require to be species-specific?

[Andrew de Vries]

We've asked members of this committee to consider changes with regard to critical habitat. There will probably be some wording in the act around critical habitat. That's probably too complex a question to answer here, but I'll take a stab at it. I think multi-species is a good idea because there are species that overlap in their habitat requirements. Theoretically it would be possible to identify some of those areas as critical habitat for one or more species.

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

Terrific. My question was difficult to answer, but the debate was between biology and religion before, so we'll move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before we get going down that road again, we'll stop it right there.

Mr. Watson, you're on.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have no questions, but I would cede my time to another colleague. I think Mr. Calkins has been raring to respond.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Jeff.

In light of what Mr. Trudeau said, I think he and I—if we were being completely honest—both share an outstanding passion for Canada's wild spaces and our wildlife. I'm simply stating what I know as somebody who's trained as a biologist. I'm not even a professional biologist. I should admit that right up front. I've had the privilege of working in our national parks and for Alberta Environment on the ground.

I do want to get back to the issue pertaining to this bill. I do believe that Canada does need a species at risk act, obviously. I'm not suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater, but I do think this bill needs some serious changes. I'm getting a little bit frustrated, and I'm not mad specifically at any particular.... But I haven't seen any really big, hard requests from anybody, whether it's environmental groups or industry groups, to give this thing the swift kick in the pants I think it deserves.

When you take a look at the consultative process—and I know we were talking about consultation—we're frustrated with how long things take. We're frustrated at the lack of information. COSEWIC has a very tough job to do. They have to determine, based on the definitions in here, things like the wildlife species and whether or not a wildlife species, a population, or a subspecies of that population, is indeed threatened. That's a difficult, time-consuming thing to do.

We look at this bill from the perspective of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, which is the body that's ultimately going to make the decision as to whether things progress in the schedules. The recommendations come from NACOSAR, which is strictly an aboriginal advisory group. The other advice comes from COSEWIC, which is strictly a combination of scientific and aboriginal traditional knowledge. There is no other mechanism in this bill that I can see outlined in this act to bring forward information and to get either the socio-economic or other types of interests brought into the Endangered Species Conservation Committee.

Can you elaborate on that? Are you satisfied with what this bill does as far as getting those particular realities in there is concerned? Because as the bill is outlined, it only takes advice from those particular groups.

[Andrew de Vries]

Thank you for the opportunity to answer that question.

We've outlined eight sections of the act we think could use work. I wasn't sure if there was an appetite to do more. We have highlighted concerns with definitions for the members of the committee to consider. I've also asked that you revisit this act again seven years from now, once you've done your review, to take into consideration these eight considerations we're going to be making.

It is a complex act. We're a complex country. I think if the members of this committee can consider our requests, that would be great.

[Patrick McGuinness]

As far as what we're asking for goes, we think these things can be done through policy development. We looked at the issue in terms of attacking the act, and I guess one of our first drafts was very much in that mode.

We saw two things. One, the federal government's presentation to this committee was generally that “it's a new act, and we're on the road to implementation, so give us time”. We got the sense from their presentation that the government departments were looking for that type of direction.

Then we reflected on the fact that the road to SARA was a long, difficult, bitter one. There was quite a bit of fighting between industry and NGOs and so on. I sat on every task force that was established by the various governments at the time, trying to represent the fishing industry. It was a difficult process.

At the end of the day, we looked at it and said that if it were opened up again--and with the minority government--we would be concerned about what would come forward. We see very disturbing signs that the NGO community is trying to bring forward prescriptive types of timelines and so forth, which we're certainly not in favour of.

Our final decision was to take the path we have. We think our requests are reasonable, based on science, and are something that can be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Very quickly, Mrs. Gelfand. Mr. Calkins is running out of time.

[Julie Gelfand]

What Andrew said is completely correct. It's a complicated country we live in. We have many different ecosystems, so we need many different tools. Many people in civil society have worked really hard to give us a variety of different tools to protect our natural ecosystems.

The Species at Risk Act is really for when the species is about to fall off the table, when it's almost too late. You really need to protect the habitat before that in our protected areas, and you have to properly manage the rest of the landscape and the seascape. You need a variety of tools. All together, I think they make a good package for protecting the ecosystem upon which we all depend. I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater either. It is the act that protects the species just before it's about to go off the precipice. Absolutely, it's best to work behind that and protect the ecosystem.

Andrew and I are also both biologists--maybe Patrick is too.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We don't have time to go into a third round. I need time with committee members in camera.

Before I dismiss the witnesses, you said that you were going to very shortly give the committee recommendations on amendments to the act, with actual drafting. I ask that you have them in before the end of the month, because it is our intention to get working on the report in the middle of May. It takes time to incorporate them.

Mrs. Gelfand.

[Julie Gelfand]

I have just one other comment in response to Mr. McGuinty's request.

We have done that work and we're surprised you don't have it yet. We are going to talk to the consultant who's been working with the NGOs and get it in to you, because it is completed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Please do. We want that homework submitted so we can have a good debate.

I thank all of you for appearing today, for your informed answers and presentations, and for the thought you've put into responding to the legislation.

[Proceedings continue in camera]