Environment Committee on April 25th, 2013

[Kim Barrett]

It would probably assist with the uptake. I would draw a parallel between SARA and the provincial Species at Risk Act, because the original provincial Species at Risk Act legislation was passed in 1971 or 1973 and was essentially a one-and-a-half-page document that said, Thou shalt not mess with the habitat of endangered species. The new act that came out in 2007 recognized that such a degree of inflexibility was completely unworkable. The new Ontario legislation introduced in 2007 contains provisions for permitting and flexibility for different organizations and has been widely viewed as a vast improvement over the original legislation, which was too rigid.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Dr. Mooers, do you agree that it would be an improvement to the federal legislation to introduce the same kind of flexibility that was introduced into the Ontario legislation?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I would answer that it's too early to tell whether SARA would need any new provisions. It must be fully implemented first on the ground, for probably a decade or so, and then we can evaluate what might be required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We'll move now to Mr. McKay for seven minutes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As you know, I'm substituting here for Kirsty Duncan, who has forgotten more about environmental initiatives than I'll ever know.

I'm actually asking her questions, and I'll direct my first question to Dr. Mooers. The question is with respect to the performance measures. Could you tell me what would be the best possible study design that would allow us to infer the comparative effectiveness of the stewardship initiatives mandated by government?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

No, Mr. Chair, but I could offer some names for a small committee that could come up with a design that might be useful.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for that.

Do you know whether any study has been conducted, and if not, how far away from this ideal design are the studies that have been conducted?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I just need some clarification—a study for what exactly?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm at a little bit of a loss to tell you myself, only because these questions are ones that Kirsty prepared for today. I'm assuming that these are environmental studies with respect to conservation.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

The previous question referred to comparing different stewardship approaches to conservation, is that correct?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That's right: what would allow us to infer the comparative effectiveness of stewardship initiatives of government-mandated measures?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I could get my research assistant to do a literature search this morning if that would be helpful. I don't know of any particular studies.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Regrettably I'm in a situation where I'm asking someone else's questions, so I'm not fully informed of the nuances and the subtleties of the question. But if you could respond to the committee through the committee chair with any helpful information, I'm sure that Kirsty Duncan would appreciate it.

The third question is, in your view, to what extent have the habitat provisions of SARA succeeded, say on a scale of zero to dismal failure? On what evidence are your conclusions based?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I think the committee is well aware that critical habitat designations under SARA are well behind schedule. I believe there are only seven action plans in place, given that there are over 300 federally listed species. I think we have to give the implementation with respect to the habitat provisions a D or an F, so I guess that's a dismal failure. Again, that is why we are calling for full implementation so we can evaluate the effectiveness of SARA. When we do have the full implementation and we can see what those habitat designations are and how they work on the ground, then we may be able to speak to some of the other members' concerns about how SARA might or might not be improved.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You mentioned something about seven action plans. Give me some scale of what that actually means. There are seven action plans when in your view there should be how many action plans?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

That's a fairly difficult question because you have to count backwards through all the timelines, but there should be hundreds.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Literally hundreds?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

Literally hundreds, yes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Really? Okay. Thank you.

My next question is for Kim Barrett. It's about the recommendation for research on habitat conservation, both on a landscape scale and an ecologically relevant timeframe. Do you have a recommendation that you specifically wish to put forward with respect to conservation?

[Kim Barrett]

I think I would just like to highlight that the federal government is really in the best possible position to do these types of landscape-scale studies over a long timeframe. In the academic world you're dealing with grad students who may do two to four years of research and then they move on to the next project.

But the federal government really has the capacity to do these longer-term studies that look at changes over time. I think the examples I mentioned were turtles and birds. So for turtles, there's one endangered species called the wood turtle that doesn't reach sexual maturity until it's 20 years old. They can live to be up to 50-some years old. So if you're making changes to their habitat, it may take several generations of those turtles before you can find out whether or not it was actually effective. That's the type of long-term data that is almost unheard of in the scientific community.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Aside from the long-term data set, which requires a significant time commitment, do you have a specific recommendation for a funding commitment?

[Kim Barrett]

I guess it could be done within the government, and also with longer-term allocations to others. With most of the funding programs out there, you can apply to them on a multi-year basis. But it's not usually a 40-year timeframe—three to five years is considered a long-term study. So I guess making those longer-term commitments is the critical piece.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So the issue is longer-term commitments. What about it as a funding envelope, also with respect to the form of application? Because from time to time—not necessarily in this context, but in other contexts—you hear of the eternal frustrations of applying for grants, which drives the researchers absolutely crazy to the point where they just give up. The sense I've been getting from a number of sources is that's exactly what they want you to do: give up, walk away, and do something else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

A quick response—

[Kim Barrett]

Perhaps a better approach would be to reach agreements with partners who would do this research, rather than having them go through an annual grant application process. Perhaps they could collaborate on this kind of thing and sign agreements to do the research over the long term, rather than having this endless cycle of applying for funding year after year.