Environment Committee on March 26th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I would like to call meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order. We welcome our witnesses today, Mr. Bob McLean and Mr. Rob Prosper from the environment department and Parks Canada.

I just want to take one minute to remind the committee of the scope of the study we're embarking on today on habitat conservation. These are the questions that had been posed earlier: What types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation, and how much does this account for total efforts in Canada? Does Canada have publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation? What are the sources of this information, and how is it disseminated? What are the most effective habitat conservation groups or organizations, and what actions do they take? How is “conserved land” defined and accounted for in Canada, and is that definition different from other countries'? When it comes to recovering a species, how do best management practices and stewardship initiatives compare to prescriptive government-mandated measures? Finally, how can the federal government improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada?

With those opening remarks to remind us of the scope of the study we're embarking on, I want to welcome Mr. Bob McLean. He has prepared opening statements and they're printed before you.

Thank you, Mr. McLean, for having them printed; that's very helpful. We welcome you now to give your opening remarks.

[Robert McLean, Executive Director, Wildlife Program Policy, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about habitat conservation. I've been engaged in this area for many years, much of my 35-year career in the public service, and it's interesting to see how our understanding of effective habitat conservation has evolved over the last few decades.

It is also interesting to note the growing range of organizations and approaches involved.

The 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook identifies habitat loss and degradation as the biggest drivers of global biodiversity loss. In a recent NANOS poll, more respondents identified conserving natural habitat as the top priority for fish and wild life conservation in Canada over any other action.

Healthy, biologically diverse natural areas also provide many natural benefits to people. Commonly referred to as ecosystem services, they provide critical support and underpin Canada's economy and quality of life. Examples include mitigating flood and drought, filtering our air and water, and offering opportunities for education, recreation, and inspiration.

When Canadians think about habitat conservation, they often think first of protected areas. The core of Canada's conserved lands consists of protected areas such as our Environment Canada national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries, national parks, provincial parks, ecological reserves, and other such areas. These are established and managed by governments, in some cases through co-management agreements with aboriginal communities, or in cooperation with local communities, such as Community Pastures in the Prairies.

In addition to formal protected areas, there are a number of other area-based conservation measures in place in Canada that effectively conserve habitat. Conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and other organizations acquire and manage lands for conservation. Efforts are under way to begin to integrate these private protected areas into Canada's national reporting.

While this is expected to increase the extent of Canada's conservation landscape accounted for, perhaps by 1% or 2%, both the national and international communities agree on the importance of reflecting and recognizing the broader range of contributions by others to conservation.

Effective conservation means much more than just protected areas. The vast majority of species depend on the other 90% of the landscape, so it is essential to recognize the value of what is sometimes called the working landscape. For example, natural areas remain within agricultural areas and managed forests, whether on public or private lands, and are important for Canada's biodiversity. Sound stewardship of these areas will make a significant contribution to the conservation of wild species and the maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

Canada is the first country to have initiated a dialogue on how we will define other effective area-based conservation measures. The Canadian Council on Ecological Areas is undertaking further work to define this term.

Typically, when we think of sound stewardship of habitat on prairie or public lands, we think of environmental organizations. But we also need to think about and recognize the contribution of aboriginal communities, municipalities, farmers, ranchers, private land owners, business leaders, and many others who can and are making a difference. These people are managing habitat by adopting best practices, developing environmental farm plans, restoring wetlands, and taking other actions in support of habitat conservation. Often, these successes are rooted in partnerships.

Where has habitat stewardship, the responsible planning, and management of resources worked well? I'll give you two examples.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a continental effort to conserve sufficient wetland and associated uplands habitats to sustain healthy populations of waterfowl shared by Canada, the United States and Mexico. While the program is continental in scope, implementation is regional and a large part of the success is due to the local partners, especially private landowners.

In Canada, partnerships called “habitat joint ventures” set priorities and guide investments. Governments provide project-based support. Since the establishment of the plan in 1986, over 8 million hectares of wetland and associated uplands have been permanently secured in Canada, while an additional 41 million hectares have been directly influenced through stewardship activities. Stewardship is a first step that can often lead to more permanent means of habitat conservation.

Another example of effectively bringing together diverse interests is the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement—a partnership between member companies of the Canadian Forest Products Association and leading environmental groups. Under the agreement, forest companies commit to upholding the highest environmental standards of forest management and conservation, while environmental organizations commit to global recognition and support for FPAC members' efforts.

The agreement applies to 72 million hectares of public forests licensed to FPAC member companies across Canada.

The federal government supports habitat conservation in several ways.

First, we take action directly through, for example, establishing and managing federal protected areas and being a good steward of federal lands. The federal government continues to play a role, an important catalytic role, for habitat conservation and stewardship through programs and initiatives that are generally well known.

My remarks include three programs that we're very proud of at Environment Canada and that are very well received. I won't go through the details of some statistics on the natural areas conservation program, the habitat stewardship program, and the ecological gifts program, which is a program under the Income Tax Act that provides a tax incentive for the conservation of lands. The federal role in these programs is more than the provision of funding or a financial incentive for habitat conservation. Projects are often based on information or conservation plans from Environment Canada, other federal departments, and even conservation organizations.

It is clear that habitat conservation is ultimately a local issue. The most effective groups, in my experience, are those that forge partnerships at the community or landscape level. These organizations, which have first-hand knowledge of the issues and pressures, can bring together all the affected parties, leverage the skills and strengths of various stakeholders, and work with them to develop conservation and sustainable development plans in support of shared outcomes.

It is important to find opportunities to support and enable voluntary community-driven stewardship initiatives, which can be so effective in designing long-lasting solutions. Sometimes, the key is simply a dedicated stewardship coordinator to bring interests together. Other times key information or technical assistance is required. Often catalytic or project-based funding may be what is needed.

Existing data, knowledge, and expertise on overall habitat conservation in Canada is widely available. The challenges are in collecting and making information accessible on a scale and in a form that's practical for conservation planning and implementation at the working landscape level. There have been some promising developments in new programs and online geospatial tools that will help.

Efforts to develop and apply a working landscape approach to habitat conservation planning and implementation are important. Such an approach helps to manage and buffer protected areas, identify and conserve other habitats, and inform land use plans and environmental assessments. A landscape approach brings government, non-governmental, and private organizations sharing data and resources and working together to achieve results and measure and report on progress on habitat conservation efforts in Canada.

Environment Canada and other federal natural resource departments have a key role to play in supporting habitat conservation within working landscapes. The federal government can help to ensure information is available and develop and promote best management practices in a range of sectors, including forestry, agriculture, mining, and energy.

The Government of Canada has committed to developing a national conservation plan to advance Canada's conservation objectives and better connect Canadians with nature. The previous studies that this committee has undertaken on conservation have been helpful in shaping the government's thinking to date on the plan. This current study on habitat conservation will no doubt further inform the ways in which a habitat conservation plan could complement and enhance current habitat conservation efforts.

In closing, habitat conservation is really about the whole landscape, not just formally protected areas. Success will depend on partnerships, finding a balance between conserved lands and stewardship, and through planning, identifying, and taking priority conservation actions. Governments at all levels have a role to play but can't make progress alone. The longest lasting results are usually the ones that directly engage those working on the ground in organizations and communities across Canada, and, I would also add, with those who are actually working on the land.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLean.

I just want to highlight again for the committee's purposes the written report that is here. Mr. McLean didn't have time to get to all of it, but there are some great points on pages 2 and 3 that he needed to omit.

Thank you very much for being considerate of our time, Mr. McLean.

I think we'll go directly to the other opening statement by Mr. Rob Prosper.

[Rob Prosper, Vice-President, Protected Area Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting Parks Canada to speak to you about the development of a national conservation plan.

The stakeholders who appeared before you last year generally supported the idea of developing a national conservation plan and supported the proposed overarching purpose of protect, connect, restore, and engage.

As highlighted in your report and in the government's response, protected areas are instrumental to conservation achievements in Canada. In this context, I will immediately reiterate two commitments made by Parks Canada officials last year, which are that the agency will actively support the development of the plan, and through our conservation and public engagement programs we will support achieving the desired conservation outcomes under such a plan.

The report on your study regarding the development of a national conservation plan repeatedly highlights the importance of engaging a diversity of actors and stakeholders to achieve lasting conservation gains. We are pleased to now provide input to your committee's study to identify ways in which a national conservation plan can complement and enhance current habitat conservation efforts for terrestrial ecosystems in Canada.

I will leave for you a number of copies of the booklet. It provides numerous examples of recent important conservation achievements of the agency that nicely illustrate the value of the diverse partnerships we have built and have nurtured to make these conservation achievements possible. This booklet was produced in the context of Parks Canada being awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gift to the Earth award in 2011. In the words of the fund:

A Gift to the Earth award is WWF-International's highest accolade for conservation work of outstanding global merit. It is a recognition of inspiring leadership and conservation achievement that contributes to protecting the living planet.

I would now like to take a few moments to provide more details about one of the conservation achievements highlighted in the booklet to illustrate the type and diversity of partnerships involved. This is the story of the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret in Canada.

You have most likely heard before about the story of that small predator that was thought to be extinct for several decades. The discovery of a small remnant population in the United States captured the imagination of conservationists and the American population in general. Soon a captive breeding program was set up, followed by reintroductions first in the United States, then in Mexico, and in Canada. In Canada, it is in Grasslands National Park, in southern Saskatchewan, that conditions were thought to be best for its reintroduction. Captive-bred animals were first released in 2009 and we obtained proof of successful reproduction in the wild the following year. And now the population is growing.

From a factual, biological point of view, the bottom line is that this is a great success, but there are very few examples of successful reintroductions of species in Canada.

There are other important dimensions to this story. Thousands of children hear this story yearly and are left with a message of hope for the future. Thousands of adult Canadians get involved yearly, giving money, others giving their time, and all find it gratifying and inspiring to contribute to building a better Canada for future generations.

In this story, what is relevant to your study is the instrumental role played by all members of a very large team of partners who came together to work on a common goal. Let me emphasize, as we have done over the years, that this accomplishment would never have been possible without the active involvement of many.

This is not a simple issue of sharing financial resources. Money can't buy many things. Success required that a range of partners with unique and diverse expertise come together. Some of them are the zoos. In this case, it was the Toronto zoo and the Calgary zoo, who bred the animals before their release in the wild, who studied their diet and behaviour and adapted their rearing protocols to enhance the survival of released animals, and who have used this great story to educate thousands of children and their parents.

Veterinary colleges throughout Canada shared their expertise in identifying and controlling threatening diseases and parasites.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shared their vast experience in rearing, releasing, and monitoring reintroduced populations.

Foundations and numerous individual Canadians donated money.

Canadian and foreign scientists studied various aspects of ferret biology that facilitated their reintroduction.

And individual Canadians volunteered time at various stages of the initiative. That includes, most recently, those who spend night after night in the darkness of the prairies monitoring this elusive nocturnal predator.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the diversity of partners who got engaged even within the confines of a national park. There is no single organization that possesses that range of expertise. This is one fundamental value of partnerships that the national conservation plan can facilitate by providing an engaging framework where groups with diverse expertise will find a natural fit.

At this stage, please allow me to reiterate the importance of well-designed and well-managed protected areas in Canada's conservation agenda. Black-footed ferrets were reintroduced in a national park for good reason. National parks, like most other forms of protected areas, provide safe and sufficient habitat for wildlife populations over the long term.

This was necessary for the establishment of a self-sustaining population of black-footed ferret, as most of its natural habitat outside the park has been lost. What is true for the ferret is also true for many other species, be they large charismatic species like grizzly bears or little-known cryptic species like the Banff Springs snail, or the Bolander's quillwort, a rare aquatic plant found in Canada only in Waterton Lakes National Park.

As this committee has heard in various contexts over time, it is important for Canada to maintain systems of protected areas that represent the diversity of environments found on our lands and in our waters. We offer that Parks Canada's efforts to complete the representation of Canadian natural regions through its network of national parks are a key contribution to the national conservation effort.

I will add here that Parks Canada's work to establish new national parks always depends on strong partnerships. Close cooperation with the Province of Saskatchewan was necessary to establish Grasslands National Park, and it is still essential today to complete land acquisitions for the park.

Strong positive relationships with the ranching community are also essential, leading to ranching families willingly selling their lands to the crown to consolidate the park, and, as importantly, to adopt ranch management techniques that are sympathetic to conserving the ecological integrity of the park. To use the proposed terminology of the national conservation plan, the engagement of the ranching community supports protection, connection, and restoration efforts of the Government of Canada and its many partners.

The story of reintroducing the black-footed ferret through partnership is not an exception. The Gift to the Earth booklet, which I will leave with you, represents several other such stories. They involve new park establishment, maintaining healthy habitat, recovering species at risk, and awareness-building and environmental education initiatives.

Partners include aboriginal communities, provincial agencies, local governments, extractive industries such as the Bowater Mersey Paper Company, industries involved in the “recreo-touristic” domain, universities, research institutes, and non-governmental organizations.

Your report on the development of a national conservation plan, tabled last year, states: “To be successful, an NCP will need to involve as many Canadians as possible in its scope and mandate.”

I hope the examples I just provided give you a good indication of the range and types of partners presently involved in conservation efforts in Canada.

In closing, I will simply repeat that Parks Canada supports the idea of developing a national conservation plan that will engage those already involved and broadens it. We are committed to help in developing such a plan.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Prosper.

I will now move to our opening round of questions, beginning with the government side.

Mr. Sopuck, you have seven minutes, please.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I just have a comment. I appreciated both reports. I'd just like to make sure that the conservation efforts of the sustainable use community are emphasized and re-emphasized.

Mr. Prosper, you talked about the ranchers in the Grasslands National Park area, a place that I've been to. Let's never forget that those conservation values were maintained by the ranching community from day one, which actually allowed that national park to be formed in the first place.

Mr. McLean, you talked about the North American waterfowl plan, which I really appreciated. Again, the role of North America's waterfowl hunters needs to be emphasized strongly, given that this group digs deep into its pockets all the time for conservation and made a strong push for what has now become the largest conservation program in North American history. I think that needed to be pointed out.

My comments and questions will focus on the privately owned agricultural landscape, as you can probably guess, Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean, could you speculate on the conservation challenges on the privately owned agricultural landscape?

[Robert McLean]

I'm just thinking about the questions and the concerns I hear as we attempt to do habitat conservation. A range of issues are cited. Sometimes it's simply good information on what to do and how to manage the lands in the natural areas that already exist on private lands. Other times it's some additional technical assistance, perhaps managing a wetland, so bringing some expertise to help the landowner really make some good decisions about how to manage the wetland. There are other times when some financial assistance is quite helpful—if, for example, there's some fencing needed to protect a natural area, or perhaps to implement rotational grazing so that appropriate grazing intensity maintains native prairie, the natural native prairie, while sustaining that use.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

What effect and what role does agricultural policy have on habitat conservation on the privately owned agricultural landscape, and what effect are recent global agricultural markets and high prices having on habitat on the privately owned agricultural landscape?

[Robert McLean]

I haven't studied recent changes in the global agricultural marketplace and how that might affect decisions that individual landowners are making, but as to how they use their land, perhaps a witness could be invited who could speak more to that.

I definitely think agriculture policy can have an important impact on habitat conservation in those sectors. I mentioned that during my remarks—the importance of those sectors. I do hear discussion, for example, around environmental farm planning and the role it can play, and the best management practices that might be described in those plans.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Prosper, you talked about managing habitats, or words to that effect, and I think the question has to be asked: managing for what? I think we all have a good idea, but there are two schools of thought. One is the “leave it alone and it'll be okay” approach, but that really doesn't work on the working landscape. Or do we actively manage landscapes for specific ecological services? Those two require very different policy directions.

[Rob Prosper]

You're absolutely right. Even Parks Canada is not in the “leave it alone” camp. I think establishing national parks of an appropriate size is a key factor. It factors in the climate change aspect. It factors in ranges of species that are required to protect viable populations. By the same token, there is an enormous amount of effort that is undertaken to maintain and restore protected areas so that they provide those ecosystem services and so that they maintain ecological integrity, which is their key purpose. In fact, we do undertake a large degree of effort in prescribed fire restoration work and so on in order to do that. Simply creating the parks and leaving them alone is not how we operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have two minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I could go on for hours

[An hon. member]

We know.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

And Mr. McLean does as well.

I would like to focus in on the definition of biodiversity. We talk a lot about biodiversity targets, but if you spend enough time on the landscape, you realize there are native species and there are introduced species. There are native species that actually cause difficulties for human beings. There are introduced species that people like; there are introduced species that people don't like. So I think the term “biodiversity targets” is much too loosely used, and nobody has really drilled down to exactly what we mean by that.

Mr. McLean and Mr. Prosper, can you comment on that?

[Robert McLean]

I think there are two levels to the response I would provide. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is a globally recognized definition for biodiversity that includes ecosystems, species, genetic diversity, and, importantly, sustainable use of biodiversity. That's at one level.

I very much agree with what I think is at the heart of your question and what really does drive people to be interested in biodiversity conservation. I think we need to think at scales that are more local or regional.

On species, people do identify with species in their backyard, if I can put it that way. In prairie Canada, farmers might relate to pronghorn antelope as a species they value. It's understanding at a regional scale how to manage habitat and sustainable development to deliver to people the outcomes they're looking for within their areas. If they value pronghorn antelope as well as the sustainable development around agriculture, how do you define that on a regional scale?

My short answer would be that I think the definition of biodiversity changes depending upon where you are, and it's really driven by personal values around the biodiversity that people have, if you will, grown up with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McLean and Mr. Sopuck.

We'll move now to Madame Quach for seven minutes.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

I will ask my questions in French. I will let you put on your earpieces.

My first question is for Mr. McLean.

Canada is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Within this framework, it committed to preserving 17% of land by 2020. However, we know that our country only has 9.9% today and that it ranks 13th in this respect in the OECD. It is therefore under the 12.6% average. Behind the United States, New Zealand and France.

I would like to know why Canada is so far behind on the plan to protect land and its habitats. Do you think it will really manage to keep its 17% commitments by 2020? If so, how does it plan to do so?

[Robert McLean]

I would begin by noting that we are still in the process of consulting and developing a set of national goals, targets, and indicators for biodiversity. The 17% that's referenced relates to a decision taken in 2010. There are targets called the Aichi targets, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, that are aspirational. We are now in the process of translating those Aichi targets into domestic targets. We have a consultation process.

With respect to why Canada is at, say, 10%, and not closer to a higher percent, I think our country is being blessed by the fact that much of our territory is actually not accessible. It is, in some ways, de facto protected already. I believe that much land in Canada, even more than the 10%, enjoys protection, but perhaps not in the formal sense.

The second comment is that both provincially as well as federally we continue to make progress on identifying and designating additional protected areas. We have a number of national parks in development. We're working on our national wildlife areas. We've seen provincial jurisdictions such as British Columbia in the north and central coast designate much of that landscape as protected areas. So there is tremendous progress.

My final comment would be the point I made during my remarks about the importance of private land conservation. The 10% that we have now doesn't actually capture private land conservation, which would add perhaps as much as another 2% to the national total of land that's protected.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

In your opinion, could the 17% rate be reached over the next seven years?

[Robert McLean]

I'm not going to speculate on how quickly the country can move to achieve the 17%. There are a number of partners working together to add additional protected areas to what's protected in Canada already.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have a second question for you, Mr. McLean.

The Species at Risk Act also fosters responsible stewardship of land by giving the federal government the power to reach conservation agreements with a provincial government, an organization or an individual. However, the committee learned, thanks to the 2009-2010 act implementation review process, that no agreement had been reached under these powers for a number of years. Can you explain to us why Canada has not reached any agreements?

[Robert McLean]

The legislation to which you refer mentions a number of different kinds of agreements that can be concluded. I spoke about stewardship. I think the more important agreements that aren't necessarily directly referenced in the legislation relate to the habitat stewardship program I mentioned. These are cooperative agreements with environmental organizations and at times individual landowners for cooperative approaches to habitat conservation.

The habitat stewardship program is a funding program of about $13 million to support stewardship on the ground by those landowners and managers. It's those contribution agreements that I think are very relevant and that demonstrate progress in implementing the legislation.

Over and above that, though, we have other programs, such as the natural areas conservation program that provides habitat for 146 species at risk. Those are formal agreements. So too with the ecological gifts program: more than a thousand gifts under that program provide habitat for at risk species.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you.

My last question is for Mr. Prosper.

The Quebec national wildlife areas budget has decreased significantly since 2011. In fact, in my riding's wildlife area, which is called the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, funding was reduced by 60% in 2011. It is very difficult for the Friends of the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area to continue to conserve habitat while at the same time conducting mobilization activities with people. This park has won several prizes from the Grands Prix du tourisme de la Montérégie for its activities with people, but also in partnership with the Mohawk community of Akwesasne. Yet their funding is still frozen. Why have there been so many cuts? What are the effects, in your opinion, on habitat conservation?