Environment Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Elaine Williams, Wildlife Preservation Canada said:

By the time the situation is serious enough to put a species on the threatened list, it often takes intensive, hands-on work to save them.... And each year, more animal species in Canada get added to the list.

Is SARA a good law? Does it help endangered species survive and recover when it's actually applied?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

In some cases it does. The good examples would be the white pelican and peregrine falcon. Peregrines I know well. I'm a bird guy. For 30 or 40 years we looked at the threats. We did captive breeding. We worked to protect critical nest sites, and we put captive-reared peregrines back in, a process called hacking. Eventually the endangered peregrine was bumped down to threatened. They're doing fine. They've responded. We had there an example of the main threat, which was toxic chemicals—the dirty dozen chemicals that caused their eggs to thin—being addressed through regulation and industrial practice, and because we sustained the full spectrum of efforts in the recovery strategy for 30 plus years, which is the ecological timeframe that counts for that particular species, and we succeeded.

Sure, it's costly, because when you let species slide down almost to the edge of the cliff, the longer you leave the preventative measures, the more costly—politically, economically, and ecologically—it is to actually bring them back up again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Woodworth for our last question.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for devoting their time to be with us today. I want to particularly thank you for the comments, which were respectful and informative.

Chief Louis in particular, I found your comments to be very refreshing and helpful. Actually, when the question was asked, “How did you get to the point of working with others the way you do?” I can see it in your approach today. It is about good communication and people skills and I really appreciate that.

I also appreciated your comments about the importance of socio-economic factors. I recall very well in the hearings we had on SARA that there was some push from some parties to try to write out and get rid of the socio-economic impacts of matters in SARA.

I do want to ask you about one item, though, that concerns me in SARA. I assume you know that as soon as a species is listed, there are automatic prohibitions against destroying the residence of even one individual of a species or killing even one individual of a species or doing anything to critical habitat. You're aware of that I assume?

It has sometimes occurred to me that it isn't helpful, because it results in delays in listing species until some of those socio-economic items can be worked through. It has sometimes seemed to me that it would be better if we could list a species as endangered or threatened without those prohibitions automatically kicking in and shutting down all of those socio-economic uses that are required, and then give the appropriate time to studying the recovery plans, which take into account socio-economic uses. Am I off track on that? Do you understand my concern about the automatic and immediate prohibitions being somewhat inconsistent with the need to respect the socio-economic uses of the land?

[Chief Byron Louis]

I understand completely what you are mentioning there. One of the things that's in there when we look at the decline of a species from threatened to endangered and right down to extirpated is that you're also talking about the extinguishment of a right that's attached to that species. In certain cases, prohibition from an aboriginal perspective would be necessary.

The other part of that is that SARA allows for the development of a recovery plan in those cases, and each stage of that has a requirement for a socio-economic analysis. Again, if SARA were actually implemented in the way it was laid out and intended, those things could be dealt with during the stages of that. For prohibition and those types of things, when you're doing the assessment based upon ATK, and all these other things, there's a socio-economic analysis that should actually identify the impacts that would threaten that species.

I'll give you an example of how having prohibitions without doing the socio-economic analysis was a complete disaster. Again, that was in the south Okanagan. One particular individual wanted to look at putting in a vineyard. They came back and said that a black cottonwood forest in the south Okanagan had been identified by the province and by the federal government as being, I think, threatened or endangered. That placed a prohibition on this person's ability to actually do that without looking at a full plan. This individual turned around and basically he just went in there with a Cat.

When you're looking at some of the things in there, you have to have an understanding that the use of prohibitions, as you said, can be detrimental. The other part of that is that it's a necessity given the importance of the species in relation to rights. Again, at the end of the day, SARA allows a political decision to be made on any given listing.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just to be clear, then, I understand that if it isn't in SARA that socio-economic impact should be considered in the course of determining whether or not a species is threatened, or you would like it to be.

[Chief Byron Louis]

Socio-economic analysis is required throughout the act. I think—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I interrupt you? I'm not sure that's so, but in any event I would take it as your recommendation that it should be required throughout the act, if that isn't so. Is that right?

[Chief Byron Louis]

I'd have to look at some of those things you're making mention of because I'm under the impression that it is in the process of listing.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't mean to disagree with you. I'm just saying that if it isn't, you would think it should be.

[Chief Byron Louis]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Our time is up. Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. It's certainly been very helpful dialogue. I also want to inform the committee members that I intended to table the urban conservation report yesterday. I was not able to do that, and obviously I can't today because we're here. I plan to table that report tomorrow shortly after noon.

Thank you everyone for your participation today.

The meeting is adjourned.