Environment Committee on April 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call this meeting to order. We're kicking it off a little bit late, so we'll try to get caught up.

We're going to continue with our study of the Species at Risk Act and we have an industry panel before us today. Appearing on behalf of the Fisheries Council of Canada, we have Patrick McGuinness, president. From the Forest Products Association of Canada, we have Andrew de Vries, director of conservation biology and aboriginal affairs. From the Mining Association of Canada, we have Julie Gelfand, vice-president of sustainable development.

We welcome all of you to the panel and welcome your opening comments to the committee. We're looking forward to the discussion.

Mr. McGuinness, please kick us off.

[Patrick McGuinness, President, Fisheries Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

The Fisheries Council of Canada is a national association with members in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the northern fisheries of Nunavut, Nunavik in Quebec, and Nunatsiavut in Labrador.

The fishing industry is a $5 billion industry. We employ about 80,000 people, which is a small number, I guess, compared to those for my friends from the mining industry and the forestry industry. Our industry is particularly important to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important both culturally and in terms of GDP for Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, and the northern fisheries that I mentioned, and also for the aboriginal communities that increasingly are participating in our fisheries in British Columbia and the Maritimes.

With respect to species at risk, we're looking for policy changes or updates in recognition of the uniqueness of the aquatic species. Unlike other wild species, aquatic species actually have three acts--the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, and SARA--to protect and conserve the species. We want to see more convergence of those three acts in dealing with aquatic species that become threatened or endangered.

In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have seen efforts to converge the fishing act he says the fishing act and the Oceans Act, which seem to be moving fairly well and seem to be quite progressive. We'd like to see a little more of that happening with respect to SARA. In other words, work still needs to be done in order to try to harmonize those three acts with respect to endangered species. I should say that it looks as though the drafters of SARA witnessed that or recognized that, because, as you'll note, the preamble does say that SARA will complement existing legislation.

Parliament has given the Department of Fisheries and Oceans quite a bit of money and quite a bit of human resources to manage the fisheries and to be concerned with conserving and preserving the fisheries. They have considerable resources to make science-based decisions and to protect species and their habitats. They have the regulatory tools to manage the fisheries and the resources to enforce and monitor the fisheries.

So what do we want? We want basically three things. One is assessments. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the document that we've provided, in English and in French, but we're saying that there is a disconnect between the methodologies of COSEWIC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to how you determine the status of the stock.

In COSEWIC, they use mainly the rate of decline over a defined period. That's basically what determines whether the stock is in good shape, of special concern, endangered, or threatened.

In Fisheries and in fisheries science generally, fisheries science takes a broader view of the issues. It looks at a precautionary approach within an ecosystem-based approach. So instead of simply looking at the rate of decline, Fisheries will look at a stock and ask what is the extent of the decline at a certain point in time, with respect to, if you will, the precautionary approach reference point. If, for example, the current extent of decline of that species is to the right of the line, if you will, it's in generally good health. If it's to the left, it's in what we would call a red or critical zone. If it's very far left, it's into endangered or threatened.

So basically that's an element, and they also look at the recent and current trajectory of the stock. If you look at the stock and you see that it's in fairly bad shape, but that the current and recent trajectory is one of growth, that gives you a different indication than what you would have if you looked at the status of the stock currently and saw that the fact it was trending down. So you make, if you will, risk-based types of decisions.

The other element they introduce is what they call the current productivity situation of that stock. For example, a high degree of mature fish in that stock is a positive sign. A high degree of mature fish means that they are regenerating and that they have the capability of regenerating. If the natural productivity of that stock is down at the current time, which may be because of salinity in the water or because of ocean temperatures, that's a bad sign.

All we're saying is that we have a disconnect: we have the relatively formula-like approach of COSEWIC and then we have a complex aquatic ecosystem type of arrangement. Over the years, our fishing communities have basically bought into this type of regime that we're talking about: the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based approach. To try to get that community to buy into a rather straightforward type of rate-of-decline approach has been difficult and, really, in our view is not appropriate.

So that's one thing: get the assessments right.

The other thing we're looking for is governance. Basically what we want to see is some form of upfront transition protocol as to when the species, as it's recovering, if you will, exits the blunt tools of SARA--that is, prohibition when it's endangered and threatened--and moves into “special concern”. Then, instead of having just one tool, it can be governed by the Fisheries Act, which has a suite of management tools, such as just closing the area during the spawning stock. You have all these types of management tools available in terms of managing the fisheries once it's into special concern.

All we're asking for is that. To me, that's good governance. If we have fishing communities and aboriginal communities that are dependent on the fisheries, they should be able to be advised that if the stock recovers to a certain biomass then it can be moved into special concern and can be managed with tools other than prohibition.

That's what the mining industry and the forestry industry do when they have a community that is suddenly closing down. In mining, for example, they tell their people that they're closing down because there's no more ore in the area, and that's it. On the other hand, if they're closing down because of economics or markets or because there's a glut on the market, they tell their employees they're closing but it looks like they may be able to reopen at some point. That's all we're asking for. We're asking for that for fishing communities and aboriginal communities that are depending on the fisheries, with respect to commercial fisheries or fisheries that are significantly impacted with respect to species that are listed as endangered or threatened.

Our last point is on subsection 83(4) in SARA, which is the exemption for permitted activities. There seems to be confusion there. The Fisheries Council of Canada has been on every task force on endangered species going back to Minister Sheila Copps. This was a very important paragraph for us.

It envisaged that if you have a listed aquatic species and a fisheries management plan and it's part of an authorized recovery type of program, if there's an incidental catch of the listed species whereby it's brought up and it's dead and it's food, rather than throwing the dead fish and food back into the water, we are allowed to bring it to shore and have it enter the food system, if you will. We always thought that was what that subsection meant, but recently I hear a lot of confusion about it.

Obviously there have to be all sorts of constraints around that. For example, right now one listed species is wolffish. Fortunately it does not swim at deep levels, and we are part of a recovery thing. If we catch that in our nets, we are able to return it to the water live.

My last comment is that we find SARA is needlessly prescriptive in some areas. Most legislation that we get involved in now is outcome-oriented, in the sense that “this is the outcome and let's work towards that”. For example, when SARA was introduced, an arbitrary nine months was introduced, and nine months of consultation for our industry is difficult because of the seasonal nature of the fisheries. It's also difficult because of the increasing participation of aboriginal communities in the B.C. fisheries, the maritime fisheries, and our northern fisheries, and, if you will, the complications that has with respect to their being consulted and coming to a decision.

Thank you very much. I apologize for going over my limit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinness.

Go ahead, Mr. de Vries, please.

[Andrew de Vries, Director, Conservation Biology and Aboriginal Affairs, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members.

I am Andrew de Vries from the Forest Products Association of Canada. We represent member companies from coast to coast, working in all the provinces.

We are very pleased to be here today to discuss the five-year review of SARA. We strongly supported the development of SARA and lobbied with a variety of diverse groups to ensure its eventual passage. Our member companies have been working with SARA on the ground, in recovery meetings, and in meetings with federal and provincial officials for the last six years to discuss its implementation and see how it's working on the ground. Through that experience, we believe that there are a few areas of SARA--on both the legislative and the policy sides--that can be improved while maintaining a workable framework for maintaining species at risk.

We've identified seven areas of concern: first, implementation; second, consideration of socio-economic interests; third, definitions around terms such as “residence” and “critical habitat”; fourth, permitting for incidental effects; fifth, exemptions, as my colleagues have indicated; and sixth, conservation agreements. For the sake of brevity today, when I deal with points four, five, and six, I'll be lumping them in a generic fashion because we see these as tools that we can use on the ground. Finally, and seventh, we see the need for additional parliamentary review after this review is complete.

In regard to implementation, FPAC has found the implementation of SARA to be very slow, as have several other presenters you have heard from. For us, the essence of SARA is in the recovery and action planning stages of the act, to ensure the survival and recovery of the species while allowing the planning and conduct of activities such as forestry through appropriate permitting and conservation agreements.

The federal departments, working with provinces and territories, have been making strong efforts on recovery planning, and recovery plans are beginning to be published. But we're all aware that many of these plans are late. In addition, there is still only one published action plan to date, and that is for the Banff springs snail in Banff National Park in Alberta.

Also, as you've heard from other presenters, there are no published or effective mechanisms regarding permitting, exemption, or conservation agreements for large industries such as our own.

We believe this slow implementation has led to frustration for some groups, and we are beginning to see the implementation of SARA through litigation rather than cooperative and voluntary measures. We encourage the federal government to continue to seek ways to speed the implementation of SARA, and we believe that our recommendations may assist you in this.

In regard to socio-economics, Parliament was clearly aware of the balancing act of ensuring species survival and recovery with socio-economics when SARA was enacted. As we start to implement SARA, we believe that the role of socio-economics in this balancing act requires greater clarity. The minister has considered socio-economics when listing species. We suggest that this practice be codified in the act.

We find that there is confusion in the application of socio-economics at the recovery planning stage. SARA is very explicit that socio-economics be considered at the action planning stage, but is not explicit about what to do at the recovery stage, and we believe there is some confusion resulting from this.

For many species, the balancing act between habitat conservation and socio-economics will begin at the recovery planning stage. We suggest that subsection 41(1) of the act be revised to consider socio-economics, especially as it can take some time to develop action plans, as we are seeing.

Briefly, on definitions such as “residence“ and “critical habitat,” ultimately, as you guys know, any legislation comes down to the definitions of words within the act as we work to implement them on the ground. With SARA, we have the added complexity of trying to make nature fit our words, with species under consideration as diverse as snails, whales, and cottontails.

Some of these creatures do not have residences, such as nests or dens. Others clearly have distinct spaces that can be defined as critical habitat, while still others, such as caribou or salmon, roam or swim daily through large parts of Canada that are not critical to their survival but are areas where industries such as ours operate.

In addition, we find that SARA places an inordinate amount of weight on critical habitat when in fact for many species there are other environmental limiting factors to be considered, such as predation, disease and parasites, weather, and, for birds, wintering grounds in other countries.

So we'll come forward with some changes to policy and amendments to subsection 41(4) of SARA for your consideration to assist with those definitions.

For permitting, exemptions, and conservation agreements, as I noted earlier, we find the essence of SARA to be in recovery and action planning, while allowing the planning and conduct of other activities through appropriate permitting and conservation agreements. Although each of those are distinct areas of the act, for the sake of brevity I'll share with you some of our overall concerns in these areas in a somewhat generic fashion, as ultimately they are each tools that allow us to conduct our forest management activities while conserving species.

We have no evidence that there are published and effective mechanisms to ensure that permits, exemptions, or conservation agreements can be applied for, negotiated, and put into place in a timely fashion for large industries such as ours. The forestry industry operates throughout Canada on a daily basis. There will be examples whereby our industry could use one of these mechanisms to ensure the appropriate conservation of species.

For example, in the permitting sections of SARA, there's no allowance for permits for more than five years in length. This can be problematic. We have existing industrial facilities in place and our forest management planning works on the scale of decades. We could find ourselves in the position of having completed significant planning for provincial processes only to have to redo our work to come into compliance with the federal permit a year or two later.

On the role of conservation agreements, we strongly support the role of conservation agreements in cooperation with others, and voluntary stewardship measures to achieve SARA's goals. Indeed, our companies are already engaged in such activities, having conserved over three million hectares of boreal caribou habitat in the last 10 years.

We believe the provisions for conservation agreements should be expanded to provide for the authorization of activities. In addition, the exemption provisions should be clarified, as my colleague has suggested, to ensure that they apply when there is compliance with the conservation agreement.

Specifically with regard to permitting, we have suggestions for subsections 73(3), 73(9), and 73(10). With regard to exemptions, we would like to look at subsections 83(1) and 83(4). Finally, with regard to section 11, we would like to make some suggestions there.

Just prior to closing, I'll note that it appears to us that there is much work to be done on SARA, both legislatively and from a policy perspective. We've had six years of significant progress, but I don't think we fully understand the act or its nuances. We respectfully suggest that Parliament consider another review seven years after the first review is completed in accordance with section 129. We'll be able to submit our detailed proposals to the clerk early next week, in both official languages.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much for your report, Mr. de Vries.

Ms. Gelfand, please.

[Julie Gelfand, Vice-President, Sustainable Development, Mining Association of Canada]

Good afternoon to all of the members and thank you for this invitation to testify before you today.

I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to send my submission ahead of time. I was feeling ill yesterday and am on the cusp today, so I'll do my best.

I will answer questions in French or in English after my statement.

At the end of my presentation, I also have a submission to make to you on behalf of a joint group of industry partners and environmental groups.

The Mining Association of Canada is the national organization of the Canadian mining industry. We represent companies engaged in mineral exploration, mining, smelting, refining, and semi-fabrication. We account for the vast majority of Canada's output of metals and major industrial minerals. In 2005, the MAC was honoured by the GLOBE Foundation, winning an industry association award for environmental performance for our “Towards Sustainable Mining” initiative, which requires companies to report and score themselves on a variety of different sustainability indicators.

As one of the world's largest producers of minerals and metals, Canada has prospered over the past two decades from mineral policies that benefit all Canadians. Canada is recognized as an industrial leader in mining, with mineral exploration, production, and supply and service companies second to none in the world and the envy of all mineral-producing nations. One just has to go to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada's 20,000-person conference every year in Toronto to see how the world comes to Canada when it comes to mining.

MAC, like FPAC and the Fisheries Council, as well as many of our other industrial partners, has worked with non-government stakeholders and government officials from the very beginning of the debate on the Species at Risk Act. We were a member of the species at risk working group, along with FPAC, the Sierra Club Canada, Nature Canada, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation, providing the government with joint recommendations during the act's nine years of development. Since SARA was proclaimed, MAC has been an active member of the species at risk advisory committee to the ministers for the environment and DFO.

Just recently, we approved a policy framework on biodiversity conservation for MAC members. I have it right here and can provide a copy. It states: “MAC members recognize that access to land and a company's social license depend upon responsible social, environmental, and economic practices and that there is a strong business case for supporting biodiversity conservation”.

The policy statement goes on to say that “MAC members will work with key communities of interest to develop and implement responsible policies and practices to...integrate the importance of biodiversity conservation, including respect for critical habitat, into mining and land-use planning and management strategies, including considering the option of not proceeding with a project”. That's just part of the framework. Just last November, the MAC membership approved a new indicator, and MAC members will be scoring themselves on biodiversity conservation in the future and making all of that public.

MAC members have quite a bit of experience in working with species at risk. I'd like to provide you with a few examples.

The Xstrata Nickel Raglan Mine in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, announced last May that they were investing $350,000 in a large-scale research program that aims to further understand the dynamics and space use of migratory caribou populations in Quebec and Labrador in the current climate change context.

Vale Inco in Newfoundland has supported research on and transplanting of the globally critically endangered boreal felt lichen, stemming back to the 1990s. Canada and Newfoundland have one of the last remaining major sources of population of this lichen. That investment over the last seven years was again over $350,000 for the research.

Vale Inco in Manitoba has mineral leases covering 140 square kilometres. The land is used by two herds of boreal caribou. Vale Inco has partnered with the northeast regional woodland caribou advisory committee to work on recovery planning.

Another Vale Inco operation, this one in Sudbury, is dealing with the peregrine falcon issue in an open pit mine, where a peregrine falcon is actually nesting in the mine, on the cliff, and there is another peregrine falcon nest in a building that contains some toxic chemicals and is scheduled for demolition and refurbishing. In both cases, Vale Inco is working with bird biologists to set up nesting boxes and with the Ministry of Natural Resources to try to figure out how to operate the mine and how not to disturb the peregrine falcon and ensure its recovery.

Based on all that experience, MAC members do have some recommendations to the committee. They are very similar to the recommendations you have heard from the forest products and other industry associations.

In our first recommendation, we encourage the federal departments to speed up the development of definitions, policies, programs, and regulations under SARA. It has been five years since the coming into force of this legislation and there are still many questions on many aspects of the implementation of the act. We don't know what the definitions are for "effective protection" and "critical habitat". Recovery plans are late. COSEWIC does not have enough money to produce species assessments. Policies on issues such as stewardship agreements, compensation programs, and permitting systems, etc., have not been developed, and this is leading to uncertainty.

We recommend fully funding the species at risk branches within the Department of the Environment, Parks Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to allow for timely development of policies, procedures, and programs. We also believe that COSEWIC needs full funding.

Our second recommendation is around amending SARA to provide longer permitting time and to deal with existing facilities, which is the same issue that Andrew brought up. Mines last for 10 years minimum and for 80 years in some cases. Some communities are built on a mine; Sudbury is an example. So we need some kind of mechanism to allow a permit before you make such a major investment. In our case, there is also going to be the need for some kind of grandfathering of existing mine sites.

Our third recommendation is, again, around the promotion of conservation agreements. As far as we are aware, there have been no conservation agreements signed since the beginning of SARA's implementation, and we think the provision for conservation agreements should be expanded and encouraged with mining companies and other industrial people on the landscape.

Finally, we believe that COSEWIC and RENEW should be mandated to consult with private sector entities for information on species status. Many of our companies take down data on which species are coming near or around their facilities. In fact, they all do. That information should go into the development of recovery plans and action plans as well.

Now I need to read some specific wording for you.

A number of organizations representing some of Canada's most prominent resource-based industries have prepared submissions to this committee in respect of the SARA statutory review. A number of these organizations, along with several that have not made specific submissions, and the multiple entities they represent, have a common concern over the difficulty in obtaining authorization for their activities under SARA despite being extremely involved in local recovery efforts in cooperation with government agencies.

These groups formed an alliance to develop specific proposals for amendments to SARA to alleviate these concerns. To that end, they prepared a draft brief submission to this committee regarding the common issues they face and proposed fixes to SARA to deal with them.

A number of environmental non-governmental organizations have also prepared submissions to the committee with respect to amendments that they submit are necessary for SARA to be properly implemented. You will hear many of their recommendations on April 27, when they appear before this committee.

In the past few weeks, the joint industry partners and the ENGOs have instituted a process to discuss their respective proposals and to determine whether or not there is potential to come to agreement on the amendments that are needed to address the deficiencies both groups have identified in SARA. The specific issues the joint group has been discussing are as follows: the issuing of permits; conservation agreements; decisions not to list a species; action plans and recovery strategies; and definitions of survival and recovery.

Both groups have determined that in some of these areas there is general agreement on a need for improvement and the approach to be taken to the amendments. However, coming to agreement on the details of the specific wording of the solutions is, perhaps not surprisingly, proving to be a difficult task in some areas.

Nevertheless, the parties are hopeful that the discussion will proceed quickly enough--we have been having weekly conference calls--that they will be able to be in a position to provide this committee with an agreement on proposals for amendments before the committee completes its review. Both groups are asking this committee to direct Environment Canada and the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans to prepare recommendations regarding SARA to provide for an effective framework.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Before we open it up for questions, I just want to say to members that we're going to try to save about 10 minutes at the end of committee for us to go in camera and discuss next Tuesday's meeting, if that's okay.

With that, we will go with our seven-minute round.

Mr. McGuinty, can you please start us off?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I can. Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Gelfand and gentlemen, thank you for being here.

I want to go back to your last comment. You say that you now have a process whereby industry and environmental groups are cooperating, are working together, to achieve some consensus on the kinds of changes required.

When you last appeared here, on June 2, 2009, I asked if you could distill to one page the recommendations you were making. At the time, we were debating SARA, and at that time, you committed to returning a page or two to us with kind of a balance of recommendations.

We haven't seen that, Chair. I don't think it's been followed up on.

It certainly would be helpful, whatever you can put forward, and the more diversified the better. If you can bring forward recommendations for change that have gone through a process before arriving here and that bear the thumbprints and fingerprints of environmental groups and industrial sectors that are in agreement on the kinds of changes that might be made, it certainly would make our job easier in terms of the recommendations in the report.

If I could, I want to go to all three of you, just to help us understand something.

Mr. McGuinness, you said something about the differences between DFO's and COSEWIC's approach to determining the status of stock--I really appreciated that insight--and the difficulty of reconciling two fundamentally different scientific approaches. You said that the aquatic community, writ large, would be hard pressed to buy into COSEWIC's rate-of-decline approach as opposed to the precautionary ecosystem management approach that has evolved over time. Why?

[Patrick McGuinness]

I should say that DFO is generally what we would call “fishery science”. Our community just feels that the current approach, with respect to being a precautionary approach and an ecosystem-based approach, and with the natural fluctuations of the aquatic species, is a reflection of reality. That's the real world.

We've seen stocks go down. We've seen them come back up. You really need to have some fairly good science and a picture of the various factors at the present time to make a decision. They are all risk-based decisions, and the issue, at this point in time, is whether this species is vulnerable to extinction. Scientists can look at a number of factors and make that type of assessment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. McGuinness, would the COSEWIC scientists agree with your assessment?

[Patrick McGuinness]

As an example, I can have a fisheries scientist take the COSEWIC model and come up with a decision, a recommendation, that this species is threatened. They've done that just recently with American plaice. The same scientist goes with the other model, and this model on American plaice is saying that the stock status is, if you will, in the red zone. All the indicators right now are up and....

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand. You're telling me that two different scientific models would give you two different outcomes.

[Patrick McGuinness]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm asking whether the scientists who comprise the board of COSEWIC and its chair would agree with your assessment that we need to shift from the rate-of-decline approach at COSEWIC to the precautionary ecosystem management approach you're calling for.

Would they agree with that and support that recommendation for change?

[Patrick McGuinness]

With respect to, say, marine fish species, perhaps they would. Certainly, the model they have is absolutely excellent for terrestrial animals in terms of their type of natural biology. We're saying that we have a significantly different type of biology. And if you're going to have, in essence, a responsible type of position, you're going to have to take that into account.

There may be one or two fish specialists on the board of COSEWIC out of 12 or 13. So to answer your question, the board wouldn't agree with it, no. That's why we're asking this committee to perhaps throw into your report that there is an issue here, and it's a real issue.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm glad you raised that and flagged it, but I'm sure that everybody around this table would agree that what we should look at doing here is to pursue and adopt the best science. That's what we're talking about here: science-based decision-making or evidence-based decision-making.

However, that leads to the next question I want to put to Mr. de Vries, and perhaps to anybody else who wants to comment on this. That has to do with the really difficult interface between evidence- or science-based decision-making, which really ought to dominate what we're talking about here, and socio-economic interests.

Mr. de Vries, you flagged the need for a major re-examination of what this means. You're on the front lines, you're in the money business, and you represent an industrial sector.

So do you, Ms. Gelfand and Mr. McGuinness, in large part.

At that interface between the two, where are the big problems? What are the top two or three problems this report should flag and try to address?

[Andrew de Vries]

We absolutely support a science-based approach to recovery planning and action planning listing. Our industry employs a number of scientists and wildlife biologists, including me, who are engaged in this type of work. We absolutely support the best available science.

I think we're finding that it's unclear whether or not SARA requires socio-economics to be dealt with at the recovery planning stage. It's explicitly required at the action planning stage. We would suggest, given the amount of work that goes on in recovery planning, that it would also be appropriate to include a socio-economic approach at the same time that you're doing your conservation science.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have you—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired, so we're going to move on.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plait.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses.

Like my colleague Mr. McGuinty, I am surprised to hear what the Fisheries Council of Canada is proposing to us today.

First, you tell us that before we list a species on the endangered species list, the species should be the object of concern, it should be threatened, or facing extinction. Moreover, something struck me: we need a new governance model—I am using your words. Now it seems to me that this new governance model should be based on giving scientists greater independence. We have to trust science in our decision-making.

You told us at the same time that there has to be a kind of harmonization between the statements and indications of the COSEWIC and the recommendations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am having trouble understanding how in the final analysis we can really protect the species.

I will give you an example. As compared to historical levels, the Atlantic cod stock has diminished by 99%. In addition to overfishing, this is due to oceanographical changes. Everything was done under the aegis of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That said—the COSEWIC did not exist at the time—how can we better protect the species?

I would like to hear you on this, Ms. Gelfand, and you as well, Mr. McGuinness.

[Patrick McGuinness]

You brought up an interesting situation. As you say, a number of years ago, COSEWIC did identify that the cod stocks should be, if you will, put on as either threatened or endangered. But at that time, those stocks were under a moratorium under the Fisheries Act.

So you're quite right. I think what happened then was that stocks were under a moratorium, there were no directed fisheries, and there was a very limited or incidental bycatch. Also, if you encountered cod, there was monitoring and a protocol that you had to move away from that area by three, four, or five miles, I think.

So in reflecting on that, I think the government made the decision that adding on a simple prohibition, which is all that SARA has—that's all it has--would have significant social and economic consequences for Newfoundland and Labrador, the north shore of Quebec, and throughout the Maritimes. So what they did....

I mean, the thing you have to remember is that we do have the Fisheries Act, and the Fisheries Act has a lot of clout and a lot of capabilities in regard to introducing all sorts of measures. So the regime that's in place now for cod is extremely strict, and I can report that there are early signs—not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but off Newfoundland and Labrador—of cod coming back.

So to me--and I think to people in our industry--there was no question that the stock was in terrible shape. We all knew that. As for the fact that COSEWIC comes out and does the rate of decline, as you said, and says that it is in really bad shape, well, thank you very much. But it was the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, if you remember, that advised early on in the campaign that there were problems.

In any event, I would simply say that the Fisheries Act can introduce very stringent measures, and basically it did. All we're looking for is some sort of convergence of the acts and, particularly, hopefully to have the excellent scientists from COSEWIC and DFO operating with a model that is generally in keeping with how we recognize the world of fish.

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

I have a second question about the COSEWIC criteria. We know that an evaluation is done of species that are considered endangered when there is a 50% decrease in the stock.

You seem to be suggesting a change to that threshold. You are proposing that the figure go from to 50% to 70% for endangered species, and from 70% to 90% for species that are threatened with extinction. What led you to ask for this change? What is the scientific basis for your recommendation?

[Patrick McGuinness]

First of all, we didn't request that change. There was a workshop established at the University of Ottawa between the marine fish scientists COSEWIC subcommittee and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They had two days of bantering back and forth and that's one of the recommendations they came up with. Because they did agree, if you will, that aquatic species were somewhat different. So really, they in fact now are using that as an operating model in the COSEWIC subcommittee for fisheries. For something to be threatened, you must have a 70% decline, and to be endangered, it's something like a 90% decline. They've adopted that.

We're saying that's a modification, but it still doesn't get to the heart of the issue. We want a model that fishery scientists are using around the world to attest to what is the current status of that stock based against a precautionary point reference point. If it's below the precautionary point, that stock is in bad shape. If it's considerably below that point, then it's probably endangered or threatened.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has run out. Merci beaucoup.

Go ahead, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

First of all, I'd like to ask Ms. Gelfand about this joint proposal that's being developed. This is the second time I've heard about this and it's encouraging and laudatory. I think I can speak for the committee in saying that we very much look forward to receiving it, hopefully before the time is up for our review. That date is fast approaching. Also, the sooner it can be reached, the more it would help our qualified staff in coming up with recommendations.

I know what the difficulties are when you get down to the wording of specific amendments. If I could make a recommendation, you could make recommendations to us on specifics and say that you would appreciate support from the government for your initiatives in trying to reach agreement on potential amendments. Even that might be helpful, rather than trying to force an agreement when you can't reach it.

I have one question, Ms. Gelfand. I might have asked you this the last time you were here. My association with mining is perhaps quite different from the association the rest of Canada has. Are the tar sands mines members of your association?