Environment Committee on May 9th, 2013

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Fair enough, it enables it.

The last program I'd like to point to is the Canada research chairs program. It's one that I think is particularly important to research across Canada, especially basic research. Again, congratulations on your holding a tier-one research chair.

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

Thank you.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I think the more we can promote academic research, especially women leaders such as you, through these programs, the more it speaks to our country's scientific capacity as a nation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

On a point of order, I wonder if Ms. Rempel could explain to us the relevance of this line of questioning and how it fits into the scope.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Certainly. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, my colleague opposite, Madam Quach, laid out a line of questioning or witness preamble that suggested that Dr. Otto's basic research capacity was important to the study, which I believe we all agreed to. Next she opened up a line of questioning with regard to the national research centre that was not directed primarily towards the scope of the study. I think what she was trying to get at was to show the impact of research funding on this habitat conservation study. I'm perhaps doing that in a more direct way and teasing out witness testimony that shows that there actually has been an increase in basic research, Mr. Chair, that has appropriately sponsored this type of research in this area.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Proceed.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

In fact, we've already established at this committee—perhaps it might have been with our previous chair—that preambles are fair game. You can talk about whatever you want when you're about to set up a line of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

On that basis, Ms. Leslie, I will allow Ms. Rempel to continue. She's setting out the preamble.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

But these are questions, Mr. Chair, not a preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm ruling that Ms. Rempel has the floor.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm challenging the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would comment on these questions at this point. I'd like to simply close off my line of questioning to thank both Dr. Otto and Dr. Whitton for their time today and for their research in this important area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I want to thank all of our witnesses, especially those from the west.

Sorry, Ms. Duncan is back. I thought Ms. Duncan had left us.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

She didn't get a turn, so we're going to give five minutes to Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses.

Dr. Otto, I do want to acknowledge that you gave $100,000 of your prize money. Thank you for such generosity.

We want evidence-based policies in this country. Is there evidence? One of the questions this committee is being asked is to compare what is better, management practices and stewardship or prescriptive government-mandated measures? I would like to know if there's actually evidence, because we want evidence-based decisions in this country. Is there evidence to suggest one or the other?

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

I'm a little confused about the distinction. It seems to me that whether we all agree that a particular habitat needs to be preserved, and then we preserve it, or whether the government decides the habitat needs to be preserved and does so, either way, if the species is there and that is what is needed to protect it, the goal should be the same.

What I can also say is that we're probably not going to move very quickly unless we bring all the stakeholders together to work. There is evidence that if you don't collaborate and try to work together movement is slow, and we can't afford slow movement on these issues.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Dr. Otto.

So what would be your recommendation, your wish list, for this committee?

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

My wish list is that we increase the setting aside of land, that we work together with the kind of habitat-banking initiatives Heather Kleb discussed, that private and public funding is made available to determine which are the most critical habitats, and that we act now to save them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Should SARA be implemented, or should it be, in the government's words, streamlined?

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

I don't believe it's being streamlined; I believe it's being stalled. I think this is of great concern. I am very worried that other countries are increasingly seeing Canada as the dodo bird. We received a dodo bird award for our environmental policies. I'm very concerned about the impacts this will have on trade and on jobs in Canada. I'm worried about losing our reputation internationally as an environmentally concerned country.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think the government's word in this case, when it applies to SARA, is actually “efficient”, so I'd like to say that.

Would your recommendation to this committee be that SARA should be implemented?

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

Yes.