Environment Committee on May 30th, 2013

[Pierre Gratton]

Then I don't know if any of us understand it. I don't understand your question.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes.

[Kate Lindsay, Advisor, Conservation Biology, Forest Products Association of Canada]

If we're speaking of SARA specifically, we only have seven action plans in place for over 300 species that are listed. So it's yet to be determined if there will be evidence from those government-mandated measures. I think we can say that there is evidence of stewardship initiatives working for species.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I've asked a very specific question. We all believe in evidence-based decision-making. I'm asking you to compare what evidence exists...to compare those two things. I think we're all struggling with “there isn't”. What studies have been undertaken to determine which is better?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think Mr. Chalmers wanted to answer.

[Ben Chalmers]

I think the best way we can answer it is to build on what Kate just said. There are only seven action plans, which is the method that SARA has mandated to implement recovery strategies.

This is a very small number. You can contrast it with the number of examples that each of the associations here gave. With voluntary action taking place on the ground, I think there is ample evidence to suggest that real gains can be made through voluntary collaborations between multi-stakeholders groups, with industry, and with groups such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think you're getting your message out. I don't think you're answering my questions. I have asked a very specific question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You may not like the answer to the question, but I think they have answered the question. I would ask you to move on to your next question as soon as possible.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I thought my time was mine to use as I would choose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

It is. We'll be sure to add it.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The question I've asked you is: what studies have been conducted to determine which is better?

[Mark Hubert]

I guess what we're leading up to is to—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

—and how far away are such studies from being developed?

[Mark Hubert]

I guess what we could commit to is to provide examples of the stewardship-based results that we see as a result of work that has taken place. Whether or not we can contrast that with what has taken place under SARA so far may be a little difficult at this stage, but to provide evidence of the results that have taken place as a result of the agreements in place at the moment, we think—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I guess my point is.... Where are these studies, and how far away are we from developing them? If we say we believe in evidence-based policy, this is a fundamental question.

I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

No, you have another 30 seconds. I took 30 seconds of your—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Oh, okay, then I do have a question.

Mr. Bates, we've heard from a number of people about no net loss policies, and today you mentioned net gain.

Could you share with us your wish list?

[Rick Bates]

There are net-gain systems in place that typically involve some kind of habitat banking system to make them work. We've looked at those a bit. There is lots of controversy around that habitat-banking approach. Some people are very much in favour of it; some less so.

We're not convinced that these systems aren't a good thing. We think there is possibility there. We don't have a specific program model in place that we believe would work yet, and I don't know of anybody in Canada who has one that everybody else is in agreement with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much for that response.

We'll move now to Ms. Leslie, for five minutes, please.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Oh, great. Thanks. For some reason, I thought we went back....

Anyway—

[An hon. member]

I thought we did, too.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Is it really me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

It's really you.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

Thank you for your testimony. This has been a good conversation.

I have a number of questions. Where should I start? I think I may start with the Forest Products Association. First of all, I'm a huge fan of the work the Forest Products Association has done. I think it's a model of how industry can work with the community to come up with the best solutions. It's not just about value added. It's about real value extraction. I'm a huge fan.

You mentioned the success you've had on the northeastern forest management plan. I'd really like to hear about what that is and who the stakeholders are. How did this all unfold?

[Mark Hubert]

It's an example of the conservation planning that's taking place on all of the tenures, particularly if we're talking in the context of SARA, with respect to the development of action plans to comply with SARA.

The provincial government in Ontario in this case had a caribou approach. The environmental community that was involved in the conversation happened to be the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Ivey Foundation, Ontario Nature, David Suzuki—am I forgetting anybody? In the case of the industry, Tembec, Resolute Forest Products, and Weyerhaeuser thought there might be a better way to both preserve or conserve caribou habitat and at the same time increase wood supply going to mills.

So we based it on two methodological frameworks. I'll focus on one, a methodological framework that has been put together by all parties at the table to identify the best way to put together a caribou action plan, which was a model that was used to come up with something that would meet those twin pillars. The twin pillars aren't referenced in the agreement specifically. You won't see that language in the agreement anywhere, but it is the understanding that we've both come to the table with: the twin pillars of economic viability of the sector and conservation of species.

So it was just through hard work—for about three years under the agreement and for a couple of years before the agreement even existed—between Tembec and a couple of those conservation organizations that I mentioned. Independent science, joint GIS work, joint analysis, wood supply work, and joint caribou habitat studies put together a package they thought would work, and took it to government. The government is in the process of evaluating it right now, and we—