THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 26, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment, natural resources and climate change.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Make sure that your earpiece is away from the microphone and please don’t touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is on. Ear pieces should remain on the ear or placed at a designated sticker at each seat. Thank you for your cooperation on that.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I’m Joan Kingston, and I’m Chair of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I would ask my colleagues to please introduce themselves.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I am Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to all who are with us today and those online. Pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, we’re beginning our study on the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
We’re pleased to welcome today our first panel, David S. Lee, Chair, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada; and Christina M. Davy, Non-government Science Member, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Welcome to both of you for being here today. I believe that Mr. Lee is going to be making the remarks. You have five minutes. I’ll turn it over to you.
[Translation]
David S. Lee, Chair, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Thank you all for inviting us today.
[English]
Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
My name is David Lee, and I come before you today as a Canadian, scientist and chair of a dedicated group of scientists and experts who comprise the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC.
At your invitation, I will provide you information about COSEWIC, including findings from the 2024 Office of the Auditor General of Canada report, which identified concerns related to the support for species at risk assessment and reassessment.
The Species at Risk Act, or SARA, is Canada’s primary federal legislation for preventing the extinction of wildlife species, providing for their recovery and contributing to the conservation of biodiversity in fulfillment of Canada’s biodiversity commitments. These commitments are based on Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD, including the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022. There is also the federal 2030 Nature Strategy and related interjurisdictional nature agreements.
As a party of the CBD, Canada has implemented the Species at Risk Act to meet its international biodiversity obligations. Under the SARA, COSEWIC is mandated to assess the conservation status of wildlife species in Canada. This is based on the best available information, including Indigenous and Aboriginal knowledge, and is compiled in species status reports that are written by report authors and supported by the COSEWIC secretariat, jurisdictions, experts and the species specialist subcommittees.
We provide our assessments to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada and also the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council under the Species at Risk Act.
As of our last annual report, we had completed the assessment of 864 species assigned to various risk categories, including 378 as endangered, 201 as threatened, 263 as special concern and 22 as extirpated or no longer found in the wild in Canada. In addition, 25 wildlife species have been assessed as extinct, 62 as data deficient and 200 as not at risk.
As you can see, our assessment workload is substantial. Yet, in 2024, when the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, or OAG, examined whether the Government of Canada was meeting its obligations under the Species at Risk Act to provide adequate support to COSEWIC specifically, it concluded that it was not. The following is noted in Report 9:
Overall, Environment and Climate Change Canada is falling short of providing the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada the support it needs to complete planned status assessments and timely reassessments of species at risk under the Species at Risk Act.
The report also identified a growing backlog of reassessments and a decline in the number of assessments and reassessments since 2020, attributed to sustained resource constraints. The Office of the Auditor General warned that, at current budgetary levels, the backlog would only continue to grow.
We are aware of the current fiscal realities and the restraints imposed on government, and over the past three years, we have taken measures to improve efficiency and reduce costs, but, despite these efforts, our budget has declined and frankly remains insufficient to address the challenges identified in the OAG report.
Specifically, our budget decreased from $1.8 million in 2023-24 to $1.6 million in 2024-25 despite the obvious ongoing inflationary pressures. Our ability to operate is constrained, which limits our ability to carry out assessments and reassessments in a timely and effective manner. We have submitted a briefing note that provides more detail and a funding framework of at least double this amount, designed to support a 33% increase in annual assessments. But equally important is a contribution to the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee, one of the few subcommittees or organizations that I’m aware of that provides the necessary inclusion and consideration of Aboriginal or Indigenous knowledge. Their funding levels have been reduced substantially and remain insufficient to address the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in status reports.
Finally, I just wanted to note the substantial voluntary contributions of COSEWIC’s more than 50 members and over 125 species specialist subcommittee experts. This value that I’ve quoted is just for our operation; none of us are salaried. Although we are compensated for time for meetings, almost all of us provide voluntary time toward this endeavour. The in-kind support is estimated at between $10 million and $12 million annually, representing an investment of at least six to one.
I also want to acknowledge the continuing support from the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, wildlife management boards, especially Indigenous organizations and other institutions.
Addressing these shortfalls would reinforce the stability and effectiveness of an established and internationally recognized expert-driven and evidence-based assessment process, and help maintain public confidence in Canada’s commitments to biodiversity.
Thank you again for your time. I would be pleased to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. We appreciate all the work that you do. We have some questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, Mr. Lee and Ms. Davy. I’ll be asking my question in French.
This is quite sad. Thank you for asking to be heard. You are volunteers, scientists. We know that the welfare and development of species are important to ensure biodiversity and their survival. You spoke about all that at a high level. Now I’d like you to tell us, non-scientist Canadians, something. If we do fewer reviews and such, which animals are most endangered, in your view? Which of the most endangered species are people perhaps less familiar with? Everyone talks about caribou, so we know they are endangered, but please explain why this lack of funding can directly diminish our ability to adequately preserve certain species. Above all, could you tell us which species, because we need examples?
[English]
Mr. Lee: Thank you for the question. Perhaps I’ll just provide a general response and then I’ll turn to Christina Davy for some of the specific examples that you asked.
The larger picture example I wanted to provide is that, with the growing backlog of reassessments, but also the lack of resources to complete new assessments, there is a list of at least 50 bird species that may not be assessed before they become extinct or at least endangered. And that is a primary concern, obviously, to all Canadians, because there would not even have been the ability for the Species at Risk Act to be in place to run its course.
For specific examples, perhaps I’ll turn to Christina.
Christina M. Davy, Non-government Science Member, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: Thank you for your question. I will keep this short, but please know that I could go on all day giving you specific examples. I would like to highlight a few that perhaps are not as well known as caribou, and I would like to make the point that each of the species we assess, and each of the species that exist in the country that is now Canada, are important in some ways, and that they are all interconnected. When we lose one, it’s not just that we’ve lost that species, but we lose the connections that they had with the others, and those losses have ripple effects that affect not just other wildlife species, but also our human well-being living here.
As some examples, we have a number of bat species — I think there are six bat species in Canada — that are now federally endangered and that’s a result of ongoing mortality from collisions and also from a disease that came in and wiped out 95% of some of those populations in about four years’ time, so those are very dramatic declines. I care about bats because I personally care about them, but the reason this matters to Canadians is because bats provide pest-control services; they actually help control populations of forest pests and that has direct implications for forestry as well as biodiversity. We have a number of reptile species that perhaps people don’t think of as often. The group that’s the closest to my heart is the turtles. Again, it’s a personal bias, but turtles are also culturally significant to a number of Indigenous nations, and they provide a food source in some cases. They are used to create art and artifacts for ceremonies. And they play an important role in regulating our wetlands.
If you picture a snapping turtle, it doesn’t look like it’s doing much important but it’s actually moving around the wetland, stirring up the muck on the bottom, increasing nutrient turnover and they have a real impact on the systems we rely on. As a third example, we have a number of plants that most Canadians have never heard of. We have this amazing thing called American columbo, which is found in only a few places. I have no idea what role that plays in our system, but I’m certain it plays one, and we don’t know what its loss would mean, so the services that we’re providing at COSEWIC are helping to maintain that ecosystem function as our assessments get passed down to species recovery planning and to ensuring we can keep those species on the landscape.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, witnesses. I understand the process of listing a species under SARA, the Species at Risk Act, but what is the process for delisting?
Mr. Lee: Because we are not an organization responsible for listing or delisting, I wouldn’t feel comfortable providing you with the exact regulatory process, but I do want to respond to your question in terms of how that might come about.
Firstly, as part of the reassessment process, I’ll provide an example. The bowhead whale was previously assessed as endangered. After assessment, the committee had recommended “downlisting.” I think it was threatened, and it was to be “downlisted” to a special concern. That is then submitted to the minister and the CESCC. My understanding is it then goes through their process, whether it’s privy in council or cabinet — I’m not familiar with the exact process — to finally end up in the Canada Gazette for an amendment to the Species at Risk Act. So the reassessments are actually quite critical for any species that is currently on the list to be delisted.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have that. I also want to ask you about Indigenous knowledge as part of the discussion process that COSEWIC undertakes, so I understand the science-based knowledge. Can you talk a little bit more about Indigenous contributions? I don’t know if that would be classified as scientific or anecdotal. I don’t know this, so that is my question. How does that fit into a decision, for instance, to list polar bears as species of special concern?
Mr. Lee: Thank you for that question. It’s an issue that I’m intimately familiar with, and species, actually.
With respect to Indigenous knowledge, firstly, I don’t speak on behalf of Indigenous knowledge or Indigenous Peoples, although I do work for an Indigenous organization. I work for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. My role as chair is separate from that and, in my opinion, is a public service to Canada. With respect to Indigenous knowledge, we are mandated under the Species at Risk Act to consider Indigenous knowledge and community-based knowledge. I’m not an expert; however, we rely primarily on the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee. That was one of the subcommittees established at the inception of COSEWIC under the Species at Risk Act, and we rely on them heavily to reach out to Indigenous communities and to gather that information and incorporate it. However, it’s severely lacking because of a lack of resources.
We routinely, and understandably, receive criticism from Indigenous organizations about inclusion, and I will provide the example that you mentioned: polar bears. Initially, there were lots of discussions about the status assessment and real discontent about the initial status report upon which our assessments are based because of the lack of Indigenous knowledge. However, because the Inuit organizations were so willing to share that information, we were able to include it in the report. The co-chair of the terrestrial mammal subcommittee was willing to put in the tremendous amount of additional effort to include it so that we could come to a status assessment that I can state was not acceptable to all Inuit organizations but agreed to in terms of the process that we follow.
Senator D. M. Wells: Why wasn’t it acceptable? Was it lowballing? What was the issue?
Mr. Lee: I don’t speak for Inuit organizations; however, I think you will repeatedly hear from Inuit and Inuit organizations that the species is highly adaptable, and they feel it is a resilient species. Hopefully, that answers your question.
Certainly, Inuit have observed changes in the environment, but this was not the species that they felt should be utilized to express those sorts of changes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses today. I apologize for being a few minutes late; it is very slippery out there. This may not be within your purview, but I’m going to ask these two questions anyway.
First, our own act is in place, and you’ve talked about that, the report, et cetera, and some of the shortcomings. Are there acts or regimes in other countries that either of you could point to as models that maybe we drew from or ones that we might want to look at for improvements to our own act?
Ms. Davy: Thank you for that question.
My understanding is that the current Species at Risk Act was very much inspired by the United States’ Endangered Species Act, or ESA, which came into effect earlier, and that it was, to some extent, modelled on the ESA. However, I know from work with international colleagues that when our Species at Risk Act is working and when it is applied as intended in its wording, it is considered to be an effective and strong act. Now, I’m just telling you my opinion as a professor of biology — I’m not speaking for anyone else — but I actually think we have a framework that works when it is applied and when it’s provided with the support that it needs to function.
Senator Coyle: That’s good to know. That’s what I thought the situation was — that the act itself has integrity and is a strong act.
What I’m getting from both of you is that the really critical thing is how we are actually implementing that act and how we are resourcing it. We’ve seen the evidence you have presented and in the report that we all got.
I’m going to just turn, then — because that’s clear; there’s nothing more I think I can say about that, because you’ve been clear on that. I’m also curious, colleagues — and you have mentioned the issue of the importance of Indigenous Knowledge, which goes hand in hand — I’m from Nova Scotia, where the Two-Eyed Seeing approach is very much respected, and we’re proud of that. I’m glad to see it in any other name being applied in these situations.
So, we’ve talked about that knowledge being incorporated into the work. I’m curious to know whether there is any knowledge related to your work on wildlife as to where the biggest impacts are on Indigenous Peoples and communities in relation to the loss of species?
Mr. Lee: Certainly.
Because I have this opportunity, I want to reiterate the point that I also believe the act is very strong and that it’s really the execution of the act. One of the primary reasons we’re here before you today is the funding — really, the resourcing to the committee, which is a gateway for assessments and reassessments.
With respect to impacts on Indigenous communities, prior to becoming chair, I served as the co-chair of the marine mammal subcommittee, and I was invited to a knowledge-gathering event organized by the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee. Repeatedly, I heard from the First Nations there — although I understand that some of the First Nations are moving away from that term — they were asking us why we were not listing more species. We had to explain to them that we are not responsible for listing. We’re not an advocacy organization, and we’re not a conservation organization. We’re an advisory body to the Government of Canada under the act. We provide our recommendations.
But, to your point, and more on the personal nature, First Nations were observing the losses of many, for example, chinook salmon and their runs in, for example, British Columbia. They were asking why we weren’t doing anything about it.
There are definitely requests — probably more than that; a plea — to address these biodiversity losses. However, that’s certainly beyond our purview, because the act was structured, I think in a wise way, so that the committee would not be bombarded with lobbying or organizations, which would happen if we were responsible for listing, which we are not. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I have a few more quick questions. It is good to know in terms of the standard of quality of our act; as you’ve said, it is a strong act.
First, you’ve been clear about the resourcing being the real issue here in terms of being able to actually do the job laid out in this act and to do it well. Is there any benchmarking against other countries that have similar acts in terms of their resourcing? Is there anything we can learn there in terms of our standards compared to others?
Mr. Lee: The primary example I can provide is a comparison to is the Endangered Species Act, but I’m more familiar with the Marine Mammal Commission in the United States. They receive orders of magnitude more funding than our committee does for much fewer species, although, of course, they are iconic species, such as whales and other types of marine mammals. So they’re able to do and invest in that effort.
However, I would like to reinforce and, this being my nature, to be as transparent as possible that, even if you were able to provide us with all the funding available, we would not necessarily have the capacity right now to address it. That’s why, in the briefing note, we submitted, it was a fairly nominal request, in my opinion, in terms of the budgetary increase compared to the amount that is spent for other species or even for the salary of CEOs of organizations that work for the Government of Canada. Their budgets are almost, in some cases, equal to 75% of our annual operating budget.
So I think if Canadians were aware of the disparity and these types of decisions that are provided to fund the act and the different components, they would certainly support the initiative of us coming to speak to you today, which is extraordinary for me.
I have to say that my nature is not to come before meetings. This is the first time I have ever appeared, although I have come and have attended parliamentary hearings in a support capacity. I much prefer that. I am a biologist. I work in the field. Ms. Davy also works in the field. I have surveyed most of the caribou populations in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. I provide advice. I’m definitely not comfortable trying to lobby the government for more funding.
Senator Coyle: I want to thank you for your expertise, both of you, and for your service and the service of those who work with you in this very important work, and for your frankness with us today.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments. You are doing a pretty good job for somebody who says they are not very comfortable. I’m a farmer in my other job. I’m in the field quite often too. I understand when you are doing that work, there is nothing like having boots on the ground. You certainly get a better feel for what is actually going on.
When you talked in your opening remarks about efficiencies and so on, I know at this committee we have seen examples of requirements or regulations that hinder either your assessments or reassessments. Sometimes that’s pretty difficult to change within the act or all the different requirements.
Are there examples of things that could make it more efficient within government to be able to do your job better and more efficiently?
Mr. Lee: I don’t want to answer all of the questions.
Ms. Davy: I will give a short answer and then pass it back to David.
I have been incredibly impressed. It is a privilege to be able to work with COSEWIC. I was a jurisdictional member first for four years and now I’m a non-government science member. The generosity of the group that works on all of those assessments, all the experts who put their time in, the secretariat that supports the committee, impresses me constantly.
I know that there has been a lot of work internally in the committee to try and streamline everything that can be streamlined. At the end of the day, we don’t have the resources to keep up with the demands. We can’t meet the assessment needs that are actually out there. I think this is a question of an under-resourced group. We have tried to do more with less. We can’t. It is just math, right?
Mr. Lee: If I may, chair, first, thank you for your kind comments. I am certainly nervous, even if I don’t express it. I am. I want to provide an anecdote, and that is we met in Saskatoon. I received multiple requests to meet with ranchers because of prairie dog. Because of our budgetary shortfall, I was told, “Well, we can’t afford for you to go out to Val Marie and meet with the council and others.” I said, “Fine, I will pay for it myself.” I was serious. I was going to because I felt we’re meeting in Saskatchewan and we’re not going to meet with people that are really affected by our potential assessment? Of course, we invited them to our actual assessment meeting, but that would have required them to come to Saskatoon.
Me and a former chair, and other colleagues, the terrestrial co-chair, went out to the ranch. You cannot understand the situation unless you are actually out there. They are showing you, well, here is what is happening on the land. In fact, we are doing all of this work to protect the species. If you continue on your path, there are going to be other types of measures that need to be taken, not in a threatening way.
In fact, it was very similar to — I felt like this was what Inuit were telling me, going back to the previous example. Just look. There is a disconnect between the work that your committee does and what is happening in the community.
We don’t have the resources. I’m not even sure on a policy level whether we should necessarily be interacting at that level. But if I receive those sorts of invitations, then I will try to address them in my capacity. Again, thank you for the question.
Senator Lewis: On the reassessment, is there a timeline on them? Is it a case-by-case basis? Talk about how the reassessment process works.
Mr. Lee: Sure. I will start and then maybe Ms. Davy will comment.
The way that the act is structured, to my understanding — again, I’m not a lawyer, so I can only go on my uninformed interpretation of the act — once a species is listed, there is a requirement for a review of classification within 10 years; that is one of the reasons why we have a backlog now of over 400 species that are due for reassessment. That also speaks to some of the other questions about how then do you go about delisting some of or maintaining these species? It requires reassessments. If there are not the resources to do a reassessment, then they will remain on the list.
Ms. Davy: To come back to a nuance, to be absolutely certain that we’re clear, we’re doing the assessments but we don’t list, right? We assess based on the best scientific, community, and Indigenous knowledge, and everything that is available to us at the time. Then we recommend the status of the species. The listing itself is done by the government.
Our reassessment, same thing, right? If we reassess and we find that a species has improved in status, then it can be delisted by the government but that’s, again, a choice that we don’t make because that’s part of us maintaining independence so that we’re not tangled.
Senator Lewis: The better job you do of assessment, the further you get behind on reassessments if you can’t keep up with them, right?
Ms. Davy: That’s right. We’re creating our own, yes.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the witnesses. You’ve been very transparent about the issues you face.
My question has somewhat been answered, but I’d like to discuss the line between science and policy decisions.
You touched on this, but how does the connection between policy decisions and the committee’s activities work? Are there ambiguities, delays or outside interference? I’m interested in knowing the time frame between when a species is assessed and when it is listed. I’d also like to know how application of the Species at Risk Act works. Could you tell us more about that?
You touched on it, but could you tell us, in concrete terms, where the problem lies?
Mr. Lee: Thank you for your question.
[English]
First, I prefer to listen in French because I understand French. I listened to the interpretation.
If I understood correctly, it is really difficult for me to comment too much about the connection between science and the political decisions. That said, there have been efforts made by previous ministers and governments to ensure that our decisions are considered in a timely manner. I think there are perhaps some legal and bureaucratic processes that cause delays. For example, I’m sure most of you are aware about the definition — when a report lands on the minister’s desk, does that actually start the time that the minister or others have for consideration?
There are a number of species we have assessed that have never been listed, but that’s because of socio-economic and other considerations. Again, that’s up to the government. All we can do is provide the best available information as a service to Canadians.
When looking at COSEWIC as an organization, I often refer to a really influential chair, the previous chair, Jeff Hutchings. Unfortunately, he has passed, but he wrote the paper and he was quite instrumental in my perception of the committee, which is what I had stated: We’re not a conservation organization, and we can provide, I believe, the best service to Canadians by providing independent and evidence-based information to the public and to government. Then, it is up to the elected officials to make their decisions.
[Translation]
Ms. Davy: Thank you for your question.
[English]
I wanted to add a quick summary of the lack of political interference at the assessment level before it goes to the listing decision by the government. Although we may hear input from various groups that are interested in the assessment outcome for a particular species, because everyone is coming from their perspective, at the point where we do the assessments, it is set up so that politics is not a part of it, in that we have a set of very clear criteria that must be met for a species to be assessed as threatened or endangered. Those criteria are all biological and are about population sizes, rates of population declines and potential threats to the species. There is no space in that process for politics to come in.
Obviously, humans are human, so I could imagine a scenario where that didn’t work as planned, but I will say that the minute any mention of downstream implications from an assessment is mentioned at the COSEWIC table, there is an immediate pile-on to remind everybody that that’s not a thing that we consider. The assessment process is based only on that available evidence.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for all the work you do, the commitment and your tenacity.
I wanted to go back to Senator Wells’ question about Indigenous Knowledge. When I came to the Senate in 2017, this was not a topic we would have even heard, and I want to thank you for bringing it up. It is only when you feel safe that you can say, “Well, what is it?” so we can dig deeper.
When you look at the knowledge First Nations have — I will say “Cree,” because that’s where I’m from — for the Cree, it’s a relationship and a connection between humans and our non‑human relatives. That’s at the heart of understanding how everything works.
My dad was a trapper and a fisherman for over 40 years. He had a PhD in life. He knew the stars, seasons and the land. If there was a shift, what is causing that shift? If the caribou herd moves, why is it moving? Is it the encroachment of people? They put that in their system.
So it makes total sense when you say you cannot understand unless you are actually out there and have lived it. That is the basis of the Cree knowledge that we have.
We met with eight or nine PhD students. It was a group of senators and it was, I would say, five years ago. They did their PhD in the North, in the territories. At the end, I asked them how much knowledge they got from Elders. All of them said it was the basis of their work. I said, “You did not even put their names on your papers — on your theses.” That’s where knowledge gets expropriated and not acknowledged. Now, we look at the word “anecdotal,” which drives me crazy because it takes away from the wisdom of what Cree knowledge is about. We’re not saying this just because we want to speak. They are truly concerned.
When you look at what is happening, I work with hydro-impacted communities. We have been meeting with DFO for five years. They put the listing in that the sturgeon is becoming extinct. The group I work with is led by the Cree, but they work with hydrologists, biologists and other scientists, and with engineers. That group is now being led, and they are finally saying, yes, we need to take our direction from them. So, I have seen it in action.
When we look at how people are saying an animal is going extinct — I’m using the sturgeon. The government isn’t paying attention. What is happening here? What is taking priority? Is this an issue of resource extraction versus species extinction? You look at the Migratory Birds Convention Act that also covers Alberta. When they found birds in the tailings ponds, Alberta actually changed its law to accommodate resource extraction.
You look at marine life. People look at these beings as disposable, and they are disposable in a market-based economy.
When I look at that as a Cree woman who is seeing the death of land and animals, what would be some of the recommendations that we could do more? I feel that we have reached the limit when the government. We are looking at UNESCO with safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. You can put the loss of your culture through the loss of the sturgeon, because that is cultural genocide. It is also genocide of the earth. We are slowly going there. There is no outcry. I don’t understand it. I don’t know where to go with this anymore. What do we do?
Ms. Davy: Thank you, senator. As you already know, I don’t have a perfect answer to your question because it is not that kind of question, but I wanted to thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am speaking only for myself, but I feel the same way. Would it be okay if I bring us back to the COSEWIC link to your question?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Davy: Okay. We have talked about how our Species at Risk Act can be very effective when it is applied and implemented according to the way that it is written. It is not designed as a biodiversity conservation act, so that is just not what it was set up to be. However, it allows us to note when a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction and put additional protections in place to slow the decline or, ideally, to recover those species, which is what we would need to do anyway to preserve biodiversity and care for the earth in the way that we should in order to recognize other beings as relations.
The Species at Risk Act is not perfect. I’m not suggesting that, but it can work and it is what we have right now. The role that COSEWIC is playing the first step in the cascade that SARA then allows to happen that leads to protection of species, which includes protection of their habitats. It is an awkward tool. I am aware that it is a fairly colonial tool, but it is the tool we currently have and when it is implemented properly, it can provide protection to all of those beings that we all rely on and interact with.
Coming back to our main message again — sorry to be pedantic — the issue that we’re facing right now is that the COSEWIC bottleneck in assessments means that all those other actions — species, recovery and protection, which include certainty for proponents who wish to perform natural resource extraction but need to account for species protection in their acts — are contingent on COSEWIC functioning, and we can’t function at full capacity right now because we just don’t have the resources to do it.
If we can better resource COSEWIC, we can move those assessments through more quickly and more effectively. We can ensure the incorporation of the best available science, the best Indigenous science, the best Indigenous community knowledge and other community knowledge, and that allows the rest of that process to continue. So it is maybe not the right tool, but it is the one that we have, and I think that it can help get us there. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Lee: If I have time, I will just briefly add to your very thoughtful and considerate comments.
I know I can’t answer your question. What I can mention, as I mentioned to you earlier, is that there is another meeting that I’m actually here for, for my own work, happening across the street, which has gathered all Indigenous Peoples across Hudson Bay. What has impressed me the most are the young people who are raising these exact issues. Not only are they raising these issues, they are saying, “What is going to be left for our children and our children’s children?” I know that’s often a cliché to mention that, but it really struck me because they were talking about communities like Attawapiskat, Churchill, Arviat and Rankin Inlet, and the privilege that they have to enjoy such a pristine environment. They were talking about the fact that it was a responsibility that they had inherited this biological heritage, and how they would continue. That’s how I would tie it back to the Species at Risk Act.
It is an international obligation that Canada has committed to preventing the loss of biodiversity, and if we’re not willing to invest in that, then, ultimately, like any other piece of legislation, it will, obviously, lose meaning.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you for being here this morning. I’m learning a lot.
Did I understand correctly that you are all volunteers?
[English]
Mr. Lee: Yes, but I would like to qualify it. There are no salaried positions, and we are compensated for the time that we meet and review documents, but many members — especially the 125 subcommittee members — provide their own time to review these documents. This is an extraordinary voluntary contribution.
In fact, I first served as a member of the marine mammal subcommittee and then as a co-chair. My term ended a couple of years ago, and I thought I was done with the committee. But when the committee asked me to apply for the chair position, I felt an incredible honour and responsibility to do so because of the extraordinary spirit and contribution of each of these individuals to this task. They really do believe in the Species at Risk Act and the role that we play in conserving biodiversity. Sorry for the long answer. I’m passionate about that.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Your comments are very compelling and quite noble. That’s rare and refreshing. Thank you.
My question is about your organization’s budget. On page 3 of your presentation, we can see annual funding figures of $2.95 million in 2025, $3 million in 2026-27 and just over $3.1 million in 2027-28.
However, according to information from the 2025 federal budget, Environment and Climate Change Canada has to cut nearly $1.1 billion in spending by March 31, 2028.
Given that fiscal restraint, did you have to lower your expectations for funding until 2028? How do you think that will impact your activities, in particular, the number of assessments you’ll be able to perform annually?
[English]
Mr. Lee: First, I apologize again for speaking in English and, second, for any confusion that we may have caused. The budgetary values that you just quoted for 2025 are not the actual allocation. That is what we are requesting. Currently, I’m not aware of our budget, but if we assume it is similar to last year, it would be in the range of $1.6 million. If it is that amount, one of the reasons we are speaking to you today is because, unfortunately, last year, that did impact our operations. Not all of our species specialist subcommittees — only half of them — were able to meet. Because of that, there are cascading impacts on our ability to operate because of the voluntary nature of these members to meet.
One of the few things that they look forward to is being able to meet and collaborate and speak about the Species at Risk Act — well, the assessment.
I realize that we are in a period of fiscal restraint, and we’re trying to minimize in-person travel, but under the Species at Risk Act, it does state quite clearly that COSEWIC, may provide travel for meetings. This points to a previous question that Senator Todd Lewis had posed about bureaucracy that just came to mind now, and that is that we are being impacted by government policy, even though we’re an independent advisory committee.
Up to this point in time, I would say we have been extraordinarily supported by the Government of Canada. In no way am I diminishing their support up to this point, but it’s, obviously, beyond my capacity to make these sorts of budgetary decisions, and if we continue — and that is my message — we will continue to assess less and less species.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you again for your commitment.
[English]
The Chair: We have time for a second round, and I would ask for the questions and answers to be quite short and succinct.
Senator Coyle: I have a fairly quick question. You’ve given us a whole lot of confidence and respect for you and the work that you do. As the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, we are now very clear that you make independent, evidence-based assessments, which are provided to government and the Canadian public, and then what happens with those is out of your hands.
This is really critical work, and you are scientists. You do your work with integrity, and we count on that as Canadians. We count on that integrity.
This may not be a fair question, but I know that, for instance, the Net-Zero Advisory Body, which advises our government, is down to four members. Some people have left it — not for resourcing issues, in this case, but more on integrity grounds. Scientists, as I know it, need to have the confidence that they have everything they need to actually do the work.
I’m curious whether we’re at risk — as Canada — of losing some of the talent that is currently devoting itself to this important work, because you can’t do your work to the standard you would like to be doing.
Mr. Lee: I’ll give a brief response as well. Yes, we are at risk. It’s one of the reasons, as I mentioned, I am before you today. It is because I am hearing from species specialists at committees, especially some members who are the experts — we have the experts on these species specialist subcommittees, or SSCs — not willing to reapply.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a brief question for you.
I don’t think you’ve given us this information. You classify species, and the government ultimately decides whether a species will be listed or not. In terms of how much the government does or doesn’t listen to your committee, can you give us a percentage? Can you give us an idea? I know there are a number of categories and systems, but to what extent does the government accept your scientific advice on listing changes? What’s the acceptance rate?
[English]
Mr. Lee: I’m sorry; I don’t have the rates, but I have a general idea. For terrestrial mammals generally — so caribou and grizzly bears, et cetera — and vascular plants, Environment and Climate Change Canada has a process that is fairly expeditious. They do take them seriously. They engage in public consultation. We don’t engage in consultation.
Where there has been a gap is primarily with marine species, fish and those that fall under another jurisdiction, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The primary reason that has been provided to me is because they have other acts like the Fisheries Act that they would like to rely on.
There had been some progress in terms of listing species, as mentioned by Senator McCallum with respect to sturgeon, but I’m not certain where that lies, simply because when we meet, we are just focused on the information and the criteria for assessment.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Youance: I have another question. Does the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada work with similar organizations or institutions elsewhere in the world, especially in relation to the protection of migratory species? Do you do that, and, if so, how?
[English]
Mr. Lee: There is, unfortunately, no official arrangement between our committee and any other equivalent committee. However, I have received correspondence from other legislators or biologists with respect to how they would develop their act because they’re interested in the Species at Risk Act — for example, Australia — and their implementation of it.
What I would say, though, is because we have over 150 scientific experts, most of these experts — including myself — are members of multiple wildlife biological organizations and management organizations, so we are constantly sharing information.
Really, our current committee is comprised of the best available network without the additional bureaucratic cost of having official arrangements, and I think that’s one of the reasons why those intangibles have never been expressed but also why we continue to be able to operate the way that we can. In my mind, it’s extraordinary that we’re even able to provide as many reports as we can.
I’ll stop there, because I’ll just go on and on.
Senator Lewis: As we look at projects of national interest and so on, we always talk about how the speed of business is different than the speed of government.
The Species at Risk Act, or SARA, is an important part of any environmental assessment if you’re building a pipeline or a rail line to Churchill. There are so many projects that will be deeply affected. SARA could have a role to play there, and I think the consultation process in Bill C-5, for instance, is down to two years.
As we see these projects come on, does SARA have the ability to be able to participate at that speed if there needs to be reassessments done on species at risk or through the environmental planning process? Have you run up against that, and how do you see that in the future?
Ms. Davy: Again, I recognize that we’re in interesting times and a time of fiscal constraint, and all of these pieces are important. COSEWIC itself does not interact with that process. We’re just doing the assessments. If a species cannot be reassessed on the timeline that it is intended to be, it’s still on a list for reassessment and that will happen as quickly as possible given the resources that we have. That would mean that the species sits at whatever its current status is. If it’s been listed, it sits on schedule 1 of SARA until the reassessment can occur. The remainder of the environmental assessment process wouldn’t be slowed down by that. But if a species, for example, has improved in status, and it’s not able to be reassessed, that wouldn’t be reflected in its listing, which could conceivably mean more environmental impact assessment effort is required than would otherwise be needed. We’re just focusing on the assessment piece, but that then enables all the downstream pieces to occur.
Senator McCallum: We are in a time of fiscal restraint, but it’s only for certain areas, and it seems to be the areas that do not coincide with that agenda of national projects. That causes me great concern because of the ability of the government to ignore laws that we have made and that we fought for to move those. What do you hope the committee will do with the information that you are sharing with us? If you want to answer in writing, that’s fine too.
Mr. Lee: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for that question, because I tried to make that explicit, but not too explicit.
Our main focus is to bring your attention to the budgetary shortfall and for a recommendation for an increase so that we can continue doing the work.
I really don’t believe that the request is extraordinary compared to all of the other investments that are being made across Canada at this point, and we are not asking for salaried positions. We haven’t had our compensation increased for close to a decade. And while that has been on our list of things to do, it hasn’t been of primary importance to the membership, or at least they haven’t expressed that to me, simply because we view that as mostly a token. We are there to do the work on behalf of Canadians and, of course, the government.
So to answer your question, it would be a recommendation from this committee about addressing the budgetary shortfalls for us to address the direct concerns that were provided in the OAG report. The Office of the Auditor General has also identified them, but the response from the government was, of course, dependent, contingent on their budget.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Chair: I have some questions that I think would be helpful to the committee. If you have a short answer, then that would be great. If it’s a more lengthy answer, maybe you will accept the challenge to provide us some more written answers, so I’m going to ask the questions and then you can decide whether it’s short or long, and a written note or whether you can clear it up for sure.
You and Ms. Davy had talked about the fact that there was a different potential biodiversity conservation legislation, so what is the difference between what we have in place with the Species at Risk Act, and potential biodiversity conservation legislation? You might have to think about that.
Ms. Davy: I will keep this really quick. I’m happy to chat later with anyone if you’d like to.
The Species at Risk Act considers each species in isolation from other species. We assess one species at a time. We develop a recovery plan for one species at a time, but all the ways of knowing that I am familiar with, including Western science and Indigenous ways of knowing, acknowledge that everything is connected. That’s what the entire field of ecology is based on and you can’t really protect one thing on the landscape in isolation.
What we don’t have is legislation for protecting ecosystems as whole, functioning units. That’s separate from this conversation about funding COSEWIC, but I hope that that answers your question.
The Chair: That’s why we asked, because we know that doesn’t exist, so thank you. And again, if you have further thoughts, if you want to send them to us in writing, that would be great.
Has the Species at Risk Act built scientific capacity or has it pulled capacity into compliance process at the expense of basic biodiversity science?
Ms. Davy: I can only answer that from my perspective, but my perspective has been that COSEWIC provides a way to access the best expertise available from all across the country and builds and strengthens the existing networks for biodiversity conservation. I don’t think that COSEWIC’s efforts are limiting progress in other areas.
The Chair: My observation is that it has a lot to do with the volunteer type of work that gets done on behalf of Canadians.
How do COSEWIC’s processes and Canada’s universities interact with and affect each other? That’s the last question.
Ms. Davy: Many of the COSEWIC species subcommittee members are working in academia — not all, because there are umpteen excellent ways to do science, but there are definitely strong ties with universities. In the case of each of the members, some parts of that members’ network will be working in academic research, so that means the committee is able to tap into a very broad network in biology and environmental science departments across the country.
Mr. Lee: I would even further add that most, if not all of the members have some type of connection or affiliation with an academic institution.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Davy and Mr. Lee. It has been a pleasure having you here this morning. We’ll be talking about how we can provide some support to you, so thank you very much and take care.
(The committee adjourned.)