Environment Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Woodworth.

I'm going to come back to some points.

Mr. McGuinness, you would be aware that certain areas of the world--New Zealand is an example--have gone to strategies to protect their fisheries by having refugia. They create large areas of refugia to protect the habitat that groundfish use, and that even some of the local migratory fish use, in order to protect those species. I would like you to comment a little on that because the issue about wildlife is all about habitat and protecting that habitat.

[Patrick McGuinness]

The New Zealand industry took a very aggressive and proactive approach. They divided their part of the ocean into various segments. In each of those segments, they put a closed area, and theoretically they're representative.

Basically, in terms of the fishing industry, our deep-sea groundfish fleet and our deep-sea shrimp fleet have established a sizeable acreage in terms of a no-go zone for fishing. But you're right; the species that we are protecting here are basically deepwater corals, sponges, and certain sea mammals, so they--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So the refugia is working.

[Patrick McGuinness]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

If we take a look at lobster fishing area 34, with the refugia for the lobster fishery there, we can see the clear benefits at the south end of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.

So from my perspective, and as you come here and you bring these recommendations, I would suggest to you, Ms. Gelfand, that you could hire every university graduate who has walked within 50 yards of a biological sciences building, whether they've even gone in or not, and you would not have enough people hired in Environment Canada to do a biophysical inventory across Canada that would let us know whether there's any realistic chance that we have how many species, subspecies, or whatever it is we have.

I conducted something for the City of Edmonton's parks and recreation department 20 years ago, where we identified 80 new species that had never even been seen in the park system in Edmonton, and I just took 10 little plots out of one--one--little area inside the city of Edmonton in Whitemud Park. So we don't even know where half of our stuff is, much less whether it's an independent species.

I'm going to leave that comment with you. But I want to stress and make the point that instead of actually talking about whether this act as it exists is of any use at all, if wildlife management, which was transferred to the provinces, with the exception of fisheries and with the exception of migratory birds, for which we have an international convention, and we have a convention on the international trade of endangered species to deal with any illegal trade of endangered species.... Why aren't we suggesting or why aren't suggestions coming forward to say that management should fall within the purview of the provinces?

Habitat creation, such as our 30% expansion of our national park system, and through provincial parks, looks after the habitat. If we identify the right critical habitat, the species that we're talking about here today wouldn't even come into these kinds of equations.

[Patrick McGuinness]

I took notes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Does anybody want to comment on that?

[Patrick McGuinness]

No, that's okay.

[Julie Gelfand]

We have a national parks system in this country. We have provincial parks. You're absolutely right that protecting habitat is the key.

I would argue that the federal government should have some jurisdiction over species when and if provinces aren't taking care of them, because in some cases it can become the last species on the planet of that endemic. In Canada, it's a moral question in the end: do you believe we should allow certain species to go extinct in this country even if they do exist in the States or somewhere else?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm going to quote something to you, Ms. Gelfand. This is my time, so I don't mean to interrupt you, but I've had university professor after university professor teach me at the University of Alberta as I attained my zoology degree that the universal fate of all organisms is extinction, because everything either evolves into something different or it actually goes extinct. That is a law of biology. That is the only law of biology, so we have an act here to prevent natural law from occurring.

[Patrick McGuinness]

In terms of the Fisheries Act, that act is really quite extensive, and in terms of managing fisheries, the minister has the responsibility of sustainability and also protecting habitat.

For example, a recent report done by a group of scientists was published in Science Magazine. It rated the various science regimes around the world in terms of their adherence to the FAO code for responsible fisheries management. The Canadian regime came third; Norway came fourth.

So you're quite right. If you have a fisheries management regime out there notwithstanding some difficulties in its current shape with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and a management regime that has been compared to the FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries, there is a question: why do we then need another act such as the Species at Risk Act with very blunt tools? It's a good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Trudeau, you're up.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

I actually found myself wondering what specifically I was going to ask you about, and then Mr. Calkins came forward with a number of issues that I'd certainly like to use my five minutes to respond to. I will, of course, ask for your opinion at the end.

The first issue he brought forward was the issue of the number of biologists it would take to accurately assess the species, the subspecies, and all the way down to the populations. Obviously, we're not going to know exactly how many of this particular speckled snail there are in this particular corner of the world and whether there are more or fewer, but one of the important functions of SARA is to try to get a vue d'ensemble, an overview of how our ecosystems are doing, and that was a point brought up earlier by Ms. Gelfand.

If one specific species or one specific population is threatened within a particular area, it's worthwhile for us to look into it and know why that is. SARA performs an admirable task in a very difficult situation, in a logistically prohibitive situation, in terms of the amount of science one needs to monitor those populations so that we know what kind of impact we have. Industry brings forward a number of credible.... And we've heard from a number of industry representatives that there are attempts at mitigation. We talk about hydro plants putting fish back into the rivers, which then become sources of risk for them. We talk about the various efforts that all the different industries are making to try to be good about the ecosystems in which they are operating, and the fact that SARA sometimes, because of limited capacities, because of bureaucracy, and because of the fact that it's just a five-year-old law, hasn't articulated perfectly the best way to engage with that.

That is legitimate. That is why we're having these discussions right now. It's very important that you bring forward the testimonies that you have, but the fundamental point of saying that we need to know how our natural world is doing is that human beings are not outside of the natural world. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat depend upon the same ecosystem services that the speckled snail depends upon as well, to a smaller degree. Knowing how our ecosystems are doing is extremely important, and the fact that we can't monitor every single subspecies is not a reason to say that therefore we shouldn't have a SARA.

The other issue concerns the showcase that the Conservative government is trying to build around its parks. National parks are very important. Obviously I'm a big supporter of national parks, and I'm glad to see the Nahanni expanded, because it's a project I've been working on for 10 years at least. However, when you protect 2% or 3%, and even if it gets up to 4% or 5% of a country's territory, the issue becomes, what are you then saying about the lack of protection of the 95%, 96%, or 97% of the territory? That is something we have to understand. Provincial parks are not a panacea. They're an important element of protection, but they're not it, and you cannot build an environmental program only around them.

The final and most interesting reflection is on the natural law of extinctions. Mr. Calkins, I won't presume to make any assumptions about your religion, but I happen to be someone of faith. I believe that natural law was established by our creator, and that human beings over the past 100 years or 200 years have been hugely responsible, through our deliberate and knowing actions, for causing extinctions, something that I believe we need to be cognizant of.

To simply sit back and say that extinctions are a natural fact in the world, and that therefore we shouldn't be preoccupied with them, is exactly the kind of philosophy that is most worrying from a government that purports to be stewards of a country that includes natural non-human populations as well.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has actually just run out.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Trudeau is taking great liberties in saying things that the government has never said and would not say.... It's important that we be truthful with one another and that our statements be accurate. Through you, Chair, I would ask Mr. Trudeau to be honest in his commentary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's an issue of debate, not a point of order, but--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I would have raised a point of order with relevance to a religious discussion at the table when we are discussing the Species at Risk Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

[Inaudible--Editor]...point of order.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I'll respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau, do you wish to respond to that point of order on relevance to the Species at Risk Act?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I certainly wouldn't have brought it up if it hadn't been for the fact that one of the members opposite mentioned natural law and the evolution of.... I'm sorry, I don't mean to abuse the word “evolution”; I don't want to get into a religious debate over that. But I do want to say I wouldn't have responded if it hadn't been brought up.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think it was used in terms of talking about the extinction of other species, so I think it was okay when Mr. Calkins.... Maybe we got a little bit off track, but we'll get back on.

Anyway, we'll continue with our round.

Mr. Armstrong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to congratulate all of the witnesses. I've listened with great interest to your submissions today.

Mr. McGuinness, you mentioned something that I'm interested in, being from Nova Scotia. On the Atlantic coast, with the evidence of the cod stock recovering, do you believe that the support people have shown--including the government--for the seal hunt has positively impacted that cod stock?