Environment Committee on May 29th, 2012

[David Coon]

It's quite worrisome, the decline of support for science in the federal government. The examples are multiplying. One of them relates to this. I guess in the current budget, funds for future work—not the work that's in the hopper now, as there are a couple more years worth of work on this, but funds for future work, about how in the future we will be able to do this kind of evaluation and synthesis of the health of our ecosystems--were not provided, though they were requested.

On so many levels, it's an issue, yes. There needs to be some good sense brought to a science strategy across departments in Canada, and I guess at this point that's what we need. We need some good sense applied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have a minute and a half remaining.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay, I just need half a minute at the end for Mr. Samson.

Go ahead, sir.

[Dr. Soren Bondrup-Nielsen]

I'd like to address that question, because I mentioned earlier my study on coyotes in Cape Breton Highlands National Park.

The scientists up there I was working with were the ones who have lost their jobs because of this recent cut within Parks Canada. I'm not so sure who I'm reporting through right now within Cape Breton Highlands National Park, but I do find it very unfortunate that the cuts that occurred within Parks Canada, as a result of the cuts to Parks Canada in general, meant that the scientists and the rare species scientists were the ones who are not there any more.

Now, the study is continuing, but I don't know ultimately where it's going.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My last question is to you, Mr. Samson.

The boys I represent at home, the older fishermen, say they used to go out in the dories and jig cod. They say the demise was due to the big trawlers, the draggers, the freezer trawlers. With the sonar, they just knew where the fish were going, and they went after them and cleaned them out.

I guess my question to you is should we ban those trawlers, the draggers, on the Grand Banks and go back to hook and line?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, the time has expired, so maybe you can answer yes or no.

[Ward Samson]

Well, it's not a yes or no answer.

Trawlers tear up the ground. Yes, they do. Bottom trawlers tear the ground to pieces. Whatever is in their trawl is caught, and basically the market dictates what you take out. What you throw away or discard is what the market says too.

With a trawler, you take everything. You can say that there's some technology that yields.... For shrimp, there's a thing. With some technology, you can get away with some things. But for most stuff, what's in there you take or you discard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much. Time has expired.

We now have Madame Liu. You have five minutes.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks to our witnesses for coming in today.

I just want to pick up on the line of questioning of my colleague Mr. Choquette.

This question is directed to Mr. Burgess, from DFO, concerning cuts. We've heard from conservation organizations that they don't have the necessary expertise to carry out their activities because of the cuts to DFO, because of the fact they no longer have scientists or technicians on the ground telling them what to do and telling them how to do it. You mentioned that expertise is not only found in DFO, which is true, but it seems as though DFO does offer essential expertise and support to these folks who are on the ground. Could you talk about the other effects, or have you seen this phenomenon happening on the ground as well?

[Steve Burgess]

When it comes to the use of departmental resources, we very much have a focus on our priorities. I think the first priority for the department is to ensure that it meets its legislative and regulatory obligations and that we have the science resources to support those obligations. We recognize, though, that there is a lot of expertise outside the department, both provincially and within conservation groups, and we draw on those resources. I think we can all work together to achieve our objectives.

There are amendments being proposed to the Fisheries Act, and part of that is about the department focusing its activities on its core mandate. At the same time, we recognize that working in partnership is key to achieving conservation objectives. Some of those amendments make it easer for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to enter into agreements, partnerships, and arrangements, including financial arrangements, with third parties in order to deliver elements of the program. I think the department is moving towards working more actively with partners who have a common interest in the management of fish and fish habitat.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Samson, the message I got from your presentation was that we should talk about people, that we should have a sort of people-centred strategy, managing people rather than managing species. That's a really interesting way of looking at things.

Would you say that sustainable development in particular should be a guiding principle of NCP?

[Ward Samson]

Yes, I would.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Bondrup-Nielsen, you also spoke about the need to protect rare and endangered species, and as Mr. Burgess noted, there have been changes to the Fisheries Act. Do you think that in elaborating a national NCP we should be concentrating on habitat, or should we be concentrating on protecting species that we use for commercial or other purposes, in light of what you said about protecting our endangered species?

[Dr. Soren Bondrup-Nielsen]

We can't just protect one little component and not something else. It has to be habitat. If we protect a species, we do it by protecting the habitat and the impacts upon it. So absolutely, it's habitat, but also the species themselves.

What I would like to get across is that we can't just look at very specific parts of this whole system. It's the whole system we need to look at, not just components and think that everything else will be fine.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'd like to fit one last question in.

Mr. Coon, among all the tools in the tool kit that we have for conservation we find the ecological gifts program from Environment Canada. It's one tool that we have, but what can be done to improve this program, if it can be improved?

[David Coon]

I wouldn't put the emphasis there, really, because when we think of conservation in a policy sense, we are stuck with two things: creating protected lands and trying to protect endangered species to keep them from going extinct. We need new thinking around public policy about how to maintain the health and integrity of ecosystems and restore those that we've already damaged. That's where I think a regulatory framework will help. I think that's where we need to engage the provinces.

I will remind you that we beat acid rain. I referred to that in my presentation. We beat it with federal government leadership across two different parties holding government, and the participation of six provinces in this country and civil society. We beat it. I don't see why we can't tackle this issue, which is large, in a similar way. We have to have the political will. We have to have some vision and some wisdom.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much. Your time has expired.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Can I make a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You can.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Since the committee has encountered a few technical problems today that have slowed down our line of questioning in this round, I was wondering if the committee would be amenable to extending the meeting by five minutes to fit in another questioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

That's not really a point of order. We are on time, and things are functioning fine.

Our next opportunity for a question is Mr. Woodworth. Go ahead.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, I know that you're all aware that this is not a matter that can be dealt with simplistically. We have a lot of different interrelated factors to consider. In the last round I mentioned about 20 different things the environment department does. Somebody said that it's a tall order, and I said yes, that's the order we've been asked to fill.

I've been taking notes of things that relate just to conservation. I'm going to mention the list I have to you and ask you if I've left anything off, first of all. Second, what would your top three priorities be, considering that maybe we can't do everything, at least all at once.

We have, in the area of conservation, enforcement against human depredation and establishment of protected areas. We have basic research and applied research. We have supplying support staff in conservation efforts, assessment of projects, and public consultations in relation to conservation. We have educational efforts, protection of specific species, and efforts at climate change adaptation. We heard about ecotoxicology this morning. We have funding of conservation groups, and we have incentives or stewardship programs. Those are on the checklist I have so far.

Mr. Coon, perhaps I'll start with you. What have I missed, and what would you consider to be the top three priorities on that list?

[David Coon]

As I mentioned in my remarks, I would take an entirely different approach. Just as we need an ecosystem approach to development and approvals in the country, we need an ecosystem approach to how we organize government on this question. If we're going to have a national conservation plan, then we need to rejig the institutional framework we have within government. So I would see major reforms in the way Environment Canada is organized, and I would see some kind of new institutional arrangement that would enable work across departments to occur effectively. That would be something perhaps attached to the centre of government.

I would take a fresh look at this and say that if our goal is really—if this is what the committee decided—to protect the integrity and resilience of ecosystems across this country and restore those that have been damaged, then we need to have the institutional capacity to do that. We haven't got it organized in that way within the federal government or provincial governments right now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So that's your top priority then, I assume. Thank you.

Mr. Burgess, do you have any comment on what I said?

[Steve Burgess]

I do, thank you. In fact I would refer to three areas, perhaps not all of them on your list.

First of all, I think for a conservation plan to be successful it has to be multidisciplinary. It has to take into account not just science, whether it be basic science or applied science, but I think it has to include socio-economic factors. I think it has to include ecological knowledge, aboriginal traditional knowledge, and so forth. I think it has to be broadly informed.

I also think we need to apply a risk-based approach. It's very difficult, given the realities of resources and expertise and so forth, to do it all. I think we have to focus on priorities, and we have to decide what those priorities are. We have to be clear and transparent about that process.

Finally, we have to take a holisitic approach. I think others have referred to this previously, an ecosystem approach that describes clear goals and objectives. This is particularly important to allow us to assess how well we're doing down the road and to ensure Canadians understand how progress is occurring and whether or not we're actually achieving our conservation objectives.