:
I would like to propose an amendment, whether it's acceptable or not.
I would like to propose that the orders be reversed, and that we proceed on the 9th to review Bill C-311, the proposed Climate Change Accountability Act. That would be consistent with the rules that we previously adopted to give priority to the legislation. It's recognized worldwide that we need critical action on climate. To keep deferring this matter just seems inappropriate.
Secondly, I would like to recommend that we reduce the further list of witnesses. I'm open to persuasion, but as we sit here, the province is continuing to issue permits for the expansion of the oil sands facilities, including permits for the withdrawal of water.
We have already heard from a good number of witnesses, highly qualified science, industry, NGO, first nations witnesses, and I feel compelled to be expediting our recommendations to the federal government rather than making this more of an academic exercise.
I am fully supportive of hearing Dr. Jim Bruce, who, we had agreed, was a priority; he just wasn't available to come to Alberta. The same with Dr. John O'Connor.
It is, by the way, Dr. John O'Connor, not Dr. Jim O'Connor.
I am open to persuasion on the other witnesses, but I need to be convinced that they would add anything additional that would be of substance and necessary for us to deliberate on the matter.
I must say I'm a little bit surprised that the NDP is proposing this motion. By my count we have spent about two full meetings discussing whether or not to bring Bill C-311 ahead. That's two full meetings that we could have spent hearing witnesses and deliberating, and here we are back at it again.
Now I well understand that the NDP has an agenda. It's their agenda to get their bill heard ahead of other things. They think their bill is more important than the water in the Athabasca River system. Their bill is more important than the concerns that were raised in Fort Chipewyan and other places about the oil sands. And their bill is more important than some of the other issues we've had in relation to the oil sands. But there surely has to be a limit to the amount of time one can spend debating the same thing over and over and over again.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Stephen Woodworth: I would venture to think that if members of the public were aware of how much time has been spent debating bringing Bill C-311 ahead, they might consider it to be a waste of time. We could have been spending the time more productively doing other things. I suppose I'm disappointed that we're going to be wasting another meeting debating this same thing all over again.
Thank you.
:
I have just a quick reply, Mr. Chair.
I think the public is quite aware of the seriousness of my party with regard to the impact of the oil sands on water, air, and health. That's well known. I don't think that's a matter of dispute as much as some other parties might think.
If you look at what I said when I proposed my amendment, given the agenda that was proposed in this motion, there's absolutely no intention, if we accept that motion, to move expeditiously on recommending any action on addressing the impact of the tar sands on water. That is precisely why I raised my motion.
I am simply putting forward the proposal to be consistent. Of course, the NDP thinks that our bill on climate change action and accountability is important, just as the Conservative Party thought their enforcement bill was important. Our party had the courtesy to allow that bill to move expeditiously and bounce everything else on the agenda. So, as I said previously, I'm simply asking for consistency in the committee. All bills should be treated equally. That's the way other committees operate. I realize we can make up our own rules as we go along.
So I don't want to belabour it any further. I put forward the proposal and I would simply suggest that we vote if there are no further comments.
:
Are there other comments? Discussion?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Okay. We're going to continue on with our agenda.
We're going to welcome to the table the Species at Risk Advisory Committee, as we continue on in our study of the Species at Risk Act and the statutory review of the legislation. We have joining us, Patrick McGuinness from the Fisheries Council of Canada, Julie Gelfand from the Mining Association of Canada, Rachel Plotkin from the David Suzuki Foundation, and Sarah Wren from Nature Canada.
Welcome all.
Who else do I have here? Lorra Thompson. I guess she's not with them.
Anyway, I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Gelfand, if you can bring your opening comments.
Thank you very much to the members of the committee for inviting the Species at Risk Advisory Committee to be your first non-governmental comprehensive look at the Species at Risk Act.
I want to first indicate to you that the fact that we've come to a consensus is quite a remarkable achievement. If you look at the back of our brief, it enumerates the groups that have agreed to this brief that we are presenting to you. I would like to draw your attention to it because I think it's quite important that you note which groups there are and the variety of groups.
We have the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Electricity Association, the Association of Petroleum Producers, the Fisheries Council of Canada, the Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
On the environmental side, we have the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Nature Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, World Wildlife Fund, and the Quesnel River Watershed Alliance.
Finally, on the academic side, we have a University of Ottawa professor from the Telfer School of Management.
The important thing for you to understand as we do our presentation is that this is a consensus document. Therefore, we can only take questions on this document and what is in the document. We will all be appearing in front of you, for the most part, as individual organizations. For now we're here as a group presenting our consensus recommendations to you. I think that's just something we need to say up front, which is quite important.
We do consider it, though, a big success that this variety of groups has been able to come together to agree on a set of recommendations. For that reason, we need to stick very closely to our brief, and we will be reading it and trying to shorten it as best we can over the next 10 minutes or so.
So I'll begin.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting us to give our opinion on the Species at Risk Act. As I already mentioned, our group is made up of industry stakeholders, environmentalists and academics, who have reached a consensus. Therefore, we will answer only questions pertaining to our presentation.
The Species at Risk Advisory Committee (SARAC) provides advice to the , the Parks Canada Agency, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, especially on the implementation of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
SARA advice is discussed by individual committee members with a view towards collegiality, cooperation and consensus. However, in recognition of the diverse nature of SARAC membership, consensus is not a pre-requisite to providing advice.
Therefore, this brief is representative of discussions that have occurred within SARAC since it was established in 2005. This brief highlights issues that have been discussed at SARAC meetings that members feel are important to bring to your attention even though there may not be consensus on all these issues by all SARAC members. It is important to note that federal employees are not members of SARAC. Our membership is made up solely of industrial groups, environmentalists and academics.
Overall, SARAC is very disappointed with the implementation of the Species at Risk Act. SARAC remains frustrated that key policies and operational guidelines and practices essential to the effective implementation of the act are taking too long to finalize and implement. The process to obtain and use SARAC advice is not being fully utilized by members of the government.
The basic SARA framework is workable. SARAC is of the view that once the act has been reviewed, there may be specific sections that may need to be amended in order to make the act more effective. However, efforts to improve the protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats will also require a focus on improving the implementation of the act. SARAC is strongly of the view that regulatory certainty is in everyone's interest.
SARA appreciates the hard work to date by federal government personnel in implementing the act. SARAC stresses, however, that all interested parties, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, must cooperate, learn and adjust species at risk principles, policies and practices to ensure the ongoing protection and recovery of species at risk, their residences and their critical habitats.
We encourage federal departments to ensure fully effective and appropriate cooperation and consultation with aboriginal organizations, including the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, and in appropriate circumstances, with wildlife management boards on assessment and listing decisions, recovery planning and other matters.
The preamble of the act states that:
the Government of Canada is committed to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to a wildlife species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty.
SARAC believes that the application of this precautionary principle must be applied across the full spectrum of the SARA risk conservation cycle—assessment, listing, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
My colleagues will give the rest of our presentation, so I will pass the floor over to Sarah Wren from Nature Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for having us.
I'd like to start briefly speaking about assessment challenges. SARAC supports efforts to ensure that COSEWIC receives adequate resources to achieve more vigorous and comprehensive scientific analysis.
I'll move on to listing challenges under the act.
Within SARA, the issue of socio-economic analysis and where it is most applicable must be addressed. SARAC urges Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada Agency to form a joint committee with the objective of developing, finalizing, and publicly posting a consistent framework for the application of socio-economic analysis in SARA. The development of this framework requires consultation with all interested parties.
The entire socio-economic analysis process must be fully transparent. All interested parties must have timely opportunity to participate in the development of socio-economic analysis, regardless of where in the SARA conservation cycle socio-economic analysis—
Moving on to the extended listing process, the Governor in Council must make a decision on whether to list a species within nine months of receiving a COSEWIC assessment. Decisions to list species often require extensive consultations with stakeholders, other jurisdictions, aboriginal peoples, and wildlife management boards. As a policy matter, the federal government has determined that under a normal listing process, GIC receipt of a COSEWIC assessment will begin within three months of posting the response statements on the SARA public registry. Under an extended listing process, GIC receipt occurs once consultations with affected parties have been completed. SARAC has discussed the extended listing process and would like to point out that this process may involve considerable time lags between completion of the COSEWIC assessment and receipt of the assessment by the GIC. While appreciating that in certain situations emergency listing provisions may be applicable, SARAC recognizes that time lags delay efforts to protect and recover species and could in fact jeopardize protection and recovery efforts.
Moving on to protection challenges, under certain circumstances, if the laws of a province or territory do not effectively protect a federally listed species or its residence or critical habitat located within that province or territory, SARA provides the federal government with the authority to take action. This authority is referred to as the federal safety net. SARAC stresses that full, ongoing effective coordination and cooperation across federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions is essential and should be the primary means of fulfilling the purposes of SARA to protect and recover species and their habitats. SARAC recognizes the possible need to apply the safety net provisions by the federal government in a timely manner in cases where provinces or territories are judged not to provide effective protection of a listed species. To date, the safety net provisions have not been implemented.
Within SARAC there are differing views on when the safety net should be applied, but SARAC members agree that this reflects the necessity for further work to expeditiously define “effective protection”. SARA does not define “effective protection”. SARAC believes that SARA should provide clear definition of this term. The federal government should also finalize operational guidelines to assist all interested parties on what providing effective protection entails for provincial and territorial laws and for ensuring effective protection for individual species.
Moving on to incidental effects and permitting, existing normal operational procedures and activities will sometimes result in incidental harm of individuals of the listed species or damage or destruction of their habitat. Under certain conditions, agreements and permits under SARA could authorize the project proponent to carry out activities that would otherwise violate the act if they do not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. The assessment of whether an activity jeopardizes survival or recovery of the species should be based on best available scientific information, including that provided in the recovery strategy, and should be made publicly available.
To date, some parties requiring permits or agreements have attempted to resolve the uncertainty associated with SARA permitting and agreement processes with limited success. SARAC believes that the policies to guide the granting of such incidental effect permits and agreements need to be finalized and need to promote clarity, predictability, and transparency in the process. The lack of comprehensive finalized policies has frustrated permitting and agreement procedures in a number of instances.
SARAC is of the view that several words and phrases vital to the effective implementation of SARA need to be defined in the act or need to have much clearer definitions. These words or phrases include terms such as “critical habitat”, “residence”, “recovery”, and “effective protection”, and associated terms such as “survival”, “damage” and “destroy”. More clarity and certainty will facilitate the practical implementation of these concepts by all interested parties and better protect listed species and their residences and habitats.
SARAC stresses that in the spirit of the precautionary principle, seeking clarity with respect to these terms should not prevent, disrupt, or slow down effective action. SARAC agrees that clear operational guidelines must clearly address and finalize key definitions to ensure consistent understanding by all interested parties and more certain implementation of the act.
Now I would like to pass it over to my colleague Rachel.
:
Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members.
I'm going to be talking about recovery planning challenges.
Strict, mandated timelines are imposed for the preparation and posting on the SARA public registry of recovery strategies and management plans for listed species. As of December 31, 2008, completed and posted recovery strategies were required for 278 species at risk. In addition, management plans were due for 56 species of special concern. In total, recovery strategies for 106 species were completed by that date.
The identification and consequent protection of critical habitat are necessary to the recovery and/or survival of most listed species. The purpose of identifying critical habitat is to ensure that human activities are managed in a way that is consistent with maintaining the biological functions of the habitat necessary to ensure the survival or recovery of the species. Effective protection guidelines can be used to define appropriate management activities.
SARA states that “to the extent possible” the identification of critical habitat must be included in all recovery strategies and in all action plans “based on the best available information”. Of the 106 recovery strategies posted to date, critical habitat has been identified for 22 species.
SARAC strongly urges that the federal government dedicate adequate financial and human resources to clear the backlog of incomplete recovery strategies as expeditiously as possible. An effective approach must be developed in concert with interested parties to clear the backlog. This approach should also ensure the timely development of recovery strategies upcoming in the future. The finalization of the numerous policy and operational guidance documents that are being developed in consultation with partners will be instrumental in moving forward on this initiative.
SARAC strongly emphasizes that the composition of recovery strategy teams include both governmental and non-governmental experts. In this regard, SARAC believes that recovery teams would benefit from more proactive and inclusive composition of teams. More focused and consistent mandates for recovery teams are essential.
At times, recovery strategies suffer from disjointed, all-inclusive approaches that seem to have been patched together by several authors. The quality and usefulness of recovery strategies would be improved through independent scientific review and through posting the results of those reviews.
I am now going to talk about action plans.
SARA states that a timeline for the completion of each action plan must be specified in each recovery strategy. Core departments have fallen short of the deadlines specified by the act for the preparation of recovery strategies, thus impeding the completion of action plans. To date, there are very few action plans in development, due in part, it would appear, to the lack of human and financial resources available to complete the recovery strategies and the guidance documents needed for their development.
Finally, I'm going to touch on ecosystem approaches.
Recovery planning efforts to date have focused primarily on individual species approaches. SARAC urges a review of the recovery planning provisions in the act, as well as implementation policies, to allow for the more effective use, in appropriate circumstances, of ecosystem, multi-species, and species assemblages approaches as part of the recovery planning process. To this end, the core departments, in concert with non-government experts, need to finalize and implement uniform working definitions for the terms “ecosystem approach”, “species assemblages approach” and “multi-species approach”.
I'm now going to turn you over to my colleague, Mr. McGuinness.
Regarding implementation challenges, federal core departments need to finalize consistent and unambiguous policy documents and operational guidelines to assist in the implementation of SARA across its conservation cycle. However, in addition to these “overarching” policy papers, I want to stress the need for developing and finalizing detailed “second tier” operational guidelines. The lack of these final policies and operational guidelines greatly hinders and confuses efforts to protect and help recover species at risk, their residents and critical habitats.
Notwithstanding financial challenges, SARAC believes increased federal funding is essential to ensure the full and effective delivery of SARA. To assist in implementation and to develop useful learning tools, SARAC urges the core departments, with inputs from interested parties, to establish best practices and case studies regarding the listing process, recovery strategies, and action planning.
Regarding the minister's round table, SARA requires the Minister of the Environment to convene at least every two years a round table of persons interested in matters respecting the protection of wildlife species. The 2006 minister's round table was inclusive and transparent. However, the 2008 minister's round table fell considerably short of the 2006 meeting.
SARAC wants the minister's round table to be inclusive, comprehensive, and transparent. Round table recommendations and ministers' responses should be posted on the SARA registry in a timely manner. SARAC should be invited to help shape the topics, identify witnesses, and participate in the round table.
Thank you very much for your attention. Our crew here is ready for questions.
:
Could I just add to that comment?
Mr. David McGuinty: Please.
Mr. Patrick McGuinness: To a certain extent, we're challenging the departments to respond to those issues in the sense that you do have the act. The departments, by and large, have tried to bring forward, if you will, policies and so on and so forth. What we're criticizing, to some extent, is the lack of speed or lack of movement on that.
I don't know if it's the question that we need additional legislative words, but it seems to be that we certainly need some sort of evolution within the departments as to what their interpretations are--along with interested parties--of some of those definitions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Bigras.
Basically what happens in those situations is that you have to remember you have two acts out there, which are complementary. That is SARA and the Fisheries Act.
With respect to fisheries, the federal government does have, if you will, a range of tools that can address issues, and in those instances where analysis shows there's going to be significant social and economic impacts—for example, on coastal communities involved in fisheries—then the government at that point in time takes a wide look at what tools are available.
Under SARA, it's a relatively blunt tool—that is, prohibition. Under, for example, the Fisheries Act, you could introduce measures in terms of closures and things of that nature. So in those instances where there has been, if you will, a decision on the fisheries not to apply SARA in terms of prohibitions, fairly stringent fisheries management regimes have been introduced that try to address the species at risk issue.
I was simply going to give you my time and ask for your recommendations, but since you did such an excellent brief in providing recommendations, I'll quiz you on them.
I do notice that throughout your brief there's a running theme. It's resources, resources, resources. I guess my question would be, is it really an issue of lack of political will? How would you recommend...? Is it simply an issue that there's not the political will to actually give attention to this, or it's not seen as a very popular act to enforce? Or would you recommend that the focus should be on coming up with a strategy on how to resource this, possibly within the government, using external people, such as the community, plus NGOs, plus scientific experts, and so forth?
SARA is a relatively young piece of legislation. The first testimony was from the department, and we heard that the beginning stage of the implementation of the act was slow, but it is now accelerating. They're optimistic that it will continue to become more and more effective in its applications.
On page 2, under “Overarching Perspectives”, and during your testimony, you said that SARAC is disappointed that it's taking too long to finalize and implement. Then on page 3, halfway through the second paragraph, you say:
SARAC is of the view that these consultation and cooperative efforts are fundamental to the effective implementation of SARA and can often take considerable time, which can risk putting government out of compliance with statutory timelines....
Here's the balance. Do you have recommendations on how to properly consult and get that needed consultation, that input from the government to meet these timelines? Yes, I've heard loud and clear--we all have--about your recommendations and making sure that it's properly resourced, but how do we get that balance on proper consultation too and those timelines?
And welcome to the witnesses.
I'm quite interested in the safety net provisions and recovery strategies and the lack of enough data or scientific evidence to make decisions. It all seems related to me. We can't have recovery strategies because we don't know enough, maybe, about habitat or the state of the species itself. The safety net provisions, I imagine, are quite radical in terms of asserting federal authority.
As an aside, I would imagine that authority is constitutional, yet you can't take drastic action if you don't have the evidence to support your drastic action.
Am I correct that this is one big ball of wax, really related to the absence of scientific data? Am I understanding correctly, or am I just--
I certainly appreciate you folks coming and presenting before the committee today as we go through the legislative review of the Species at Risk Act. One of the concerns I have, and I've worked for a while in the environmental law enforcement/conservation field....
I recall one time—and I'm just going to set a preamble for this—I was commissioned by City of Edmonton Parks and Recreation to do a biophysical inventory of the Whitemud River ravine in the city of Edmonton. I laid out ten plots. I hired a botanist, Dr. George Scotter, to go in and conduct an assessment of basically just the biophysical inventory of what was there. They identified some 80 species of plants that were not known to exist—whether it was an orchid or whatever the case might be—inside the city limits of Edmonton, or even inside that particular geographic range. This led me to the conclusion that, given the fact that Canada consists of 32 million people and is the second largest land mass on the planet, there's a lot we don't know. Throw in factors such as climate change, the fact that our climate is evolving, and the natural landscape evolves along with that climate change, and everything we know about the natural range of a species, in my opinion, is a moving target.
When we have those ranges constantly moving and we have an act that basically defines extinction or extirpation within the ranges known in Canada—ranges that are constantly moving—what recommendations do you have that could strengthen the act or make the act more applicable or easy to administer? Your foremost criticism is not of the legislation itself but of the ability of the Department of Environment, whether or not it's through resources. I would also argue that perhaps there just isn't the capability—it doesn't matter how many resources you apply—to constantly try to hit a moving target.
My question to you is, what could be changed in the act? That really is the purview and the terms of reference of what we're trying to do here. The purview of auditors is to assess whether the department is able to live up to its requirements, and I appreciate your feedback on it. That's helpful. But what could we do to the act to make it more achievable, whether it's through a simplification or a clarification of certain provisions? Is there something specific you would like to see changed in the legislation?
:
I'll start. I need to say in advance that we have not talked about this at SARAC, so these will be some general thoughts about what could be done. It's not necessarily a consensus position. Maybe it would be once they hear the ideas.
One is that generally in Canada, if you think about the Geological Survey of Canada, it exists, and we know where all of our minerals are. We do not have a similar biological survey of Canada, which would provide a lot of the information that we are constantly looking for about where species are and where they're moving. That would be a fantastic new thing the Government of Canada could do that would help all of us as we adapt in a new environment, in a new climate.
On the multi-species approach that is being promoted by many ecosystem biologists, I think looking at a suite of species is going to be a way of dealing with the changing--and rapidly changing--ranges and the changing habitat. Looking at ecosystems and at a multi-species approach would be another way of doing it.
Third is taking a precautionary principle approach. So if we're at risk, make sure that we protect in order to be able to possibly have them move. Most of the species will move as the habitat moves. Some species are not going to be able to move as fast. Some species will have nowhere to move to, if you think of the top of a mountain.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.
This committee undertakes the review of the Species at Risk Act. Of course, I represent an area where we have the most species at risk in all of Canada, down in Essex County. I think in large part it's because we have severely fragmented habitat down there, unable to sustain some of the various species there.
I want to ask a couple of questions. One, you're suggesting that...which, for a starting point, is very good when we're undertaking a review. Your report says essentially that the basic architecture of SARA itself is fine. It needs some fine tuning, and you've made some recommendations on how to fine-tune the architecture of the act.
I want to zero in on one thing more specifically. You've urged a review of the recovery planning provisions in the act to allow for more effective use of ecosystem approaches to recovery planning. I think largely the act takes a primary focus on individual species.
Is your recommendation with respect to ecosystem approaches to capture more species, perhaps, or is that a more effective way of capturing more species than the individual approach in defining habitat? It's always an individual approach; can we make some progress with respect to an ecosystem approach? As well, what would SARAC like to see as part of such an ecosystem approach?
:
In light of that, a program like the natural areas conservation program from Budget 2006, in partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, is the type of mechanism that can then be applied where we begin to address a particular ecosystem.
In terms of one of the other challenges, we are located, of course, on an international boundary. Now, ecosystems don't know a political boundary on a map. SARA currently has no mechanism for prioritizing different species in terms of action.
For example, there may be in Essex County a species whose range in Canada is only in Essex County, but it may in fact be thriving in a larger ecosystem down into the United States. Yet it's given, under the act, the same importance as a species whose habitat is entirely in Canada.
Do you think SARA should contain mechanisms to help prioritize species?