Environment Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for your testimony and your availability to answer questions at the outset of this study.

I only have two questions. My first goes back to the scope of our study. One question we're trying to answer is whether Canada has publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation. What are the sources of this information? How is it disseminated?

In seeking an answer to that question, I want to ask whether or not the department is making public the need to adapt and to mitigate climate change, specifically with respect to habitat and conservation. There are some general references on the website about climate and about its being an important feature of habitat conservation. What kind of information are you trying to make available to the public in their role around climate change and habitat conservation?

[Rob Prosper]

I would probably turn to the work we're doing, both domestically and internationally, in working with the U.S. and Mexico, in using large protected areas as natural solutions for adaptation to climate change. It's a big part of our communications activities to let people know the role parks can play.

I know this committee has heard other evidence about how important protected areas and natural areas can be for climate change adaptation. It's a new line of engagement for us, both domestically and internationally.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Is there a flip side of this too, in terms of your communications? You're communicating how parks can help, but are you focusing on also getting out information about climate change generally and about the potential impact on existing conserved lands or existing ecosystems?

[Rob Prosper]

Probably the best example I could provide is that we have an ecological integrity monitoring program in Parks Canada. Although not specifically designed to target the effects of climate change, it is designed to give us a sense of the state of ecological integrity and the state of the park. This monitoring program and the guidelines we provide are implemented in every national park.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Leslie, do you want Mr. McLean to respond?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Sure.

[Robert McLean]

For the other important part of thinking about climate change and adapting to it, I would use the word “planning”.

What information do people really need? I think they need access to a really good plan to help them understand how best to use land. Parks, national wildlife areas, national parks are important, but climate change needs to be thought about for 100% of the landscape.

I mentioned that I've been around conservation for a long time. One of the big shifts that's beginning to happen in the country is that there are provincially led landscape planning processes. I mentioned the landscape connectivity project of the Province of Saskatchewan. I think it's just the first of what we will see in the coming decades by way of more concerted efforts to plan for adapting to climate change, and habitat conservation will have to be an important part of those plans.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks.

I also want to ask a specific question falling under our study concerning best management practices. I look at what's happening in Saskatchewan with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration and the decision that the federal government will no longer manage the grasslands. It is provincial crown land—I understand that—but with the federal decision to no longer manage those lands, what we're seeing is a selling off of those lands, so effectively a privatization.

You've both raised the issue of integrity of species at risk in particular around grasslands. I'm wondering how decisions like this one fit into best practices. It seems to be the opposite of a best practice here: that we're downloading this and then privatizing the land.

How do best practices fit into decision-making like that?

[Robert McLean]

That's a decision made in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, so I'm very hesitant to speculate on the decision-making. Conservation organizations know that some of those lands are important for conservation, and I understand that actively looking at the lands would be valuable from a conservation perspective. But I'm not in a position to state—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McLean. Thank you, Ms. Leslie.

We'll move now to Mr. Toet.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

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

I want to start on the basis of our study here. It's important, at least from Environment Canada's perspective, to have a definition of conserved land. I'm assuming you have standards that must be met for land to be considered a conserved area. It would be good to hear a Parks Canada perspective of the definition you use in determining what is conserved land.

[Robert McLean]

The best definition from a protected areas perspective—and there's much more to habitat conservation than protected areas. There is an international classification system adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. I'm not going to go into the details. There are six different categories for protected areas. The tracking that we do in Environment Canada is something called the conservation areas reporting and tracking system. Working with our provincial colleagues, we use that categorization scheme.

I mentioned in my remarks that the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas is doing more work on how to define other area-based conservation measures, but there will be conserved lands and conserved habitat beyond those definitions that will be important. There isn't a definition for those lands beyond the categories that were just talked about, but that shouldn't diminish in anyone's mind the importance of those lands for biodiversity and the other outcomes we've talked about.

[Rob Prosper]

I don't have an awful lot to add. I was going to mention exactly the same thing. There are standards under the IUCN for different types of conserved lands and different categories and requirements to meet them.

The one thing I would add—and I think your committee has heard this—is that connectivity is a big component in maintaining species and maintaining appropriate habitats. A wide variety of types of conserved lands can provide that connectivity. We see national parks and the completion of the system of national parks as one of the cornerstones of a conservation plan. But how habitats and species can connect can be looked at in a wide variety of conserved lands.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. McLean, you mentioned in your presentation the involvement of various sectors in supporting habitat conservation. You mentioned forestry, agriculture, mining, and energy as examples. I was wondering if you could expand on that and talk a little bit about the involvement of those sectors. One of the things I hope you could touch on is whether involvement is strictly based on regulatory requirements, or whether you're seeing a movement on the part of these sectors to become much more proactive in adapting to best practices of habitat conservation in their particular sector. The main thrust of my question is whether this is strictly regulation-driven, or whether there is a desire on the part of these sectors to be involved in this work.

[Robert McLean]

It's the latter. There is definitely a desire to be involved in this work. There is a council called the Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council. This is a compendium of case studies, so it's not regulation-driven. It's companies wanting to do the right thing. I had a chance to speak to that council in early December, and I was absolutely amazed at the companies building and integrating biodiversity into their annual business planning. Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-Québec have done some very good things. There are a number of other case studies in this publication that provide examples, and we're very happy to leave this with the clerk of the committee. You will see that these companies are motivated to do the right thing. They realize they have an impact, but they also want to do the socially responsible thing and address environmental issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have half a minute.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Just to expand on that quickly, I think it is important to note that we must see them as a stakeholder in this process, and we must work with them as we go forward in this habitat conservation plan to be able to talk to these different sectors and find out what they are doing as part of their best practices.

You have the study where you're showing some of these best practices. How are you sharing that with these sectors as best practices? Are you working with Environment Canada to share that knowledge, so that all of these sectors can see what the best practices are and be able to adapt those in their business practices?

[Robert McLean]

Yes, the council to which I referred maintains its own website, but then there are best management practices led by our federal government colleagues, as well as provincial-territorial ministries. They would have best management practices in their sectors. So the agriculture sector would have best management practices, the forest sector would, and definitely the mining sector as well. A Google search would bring you to any number of those best management practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Toet.

We're going to move to our last questioner, Madame Quach, and then we're going to move into our in camera session to complete our urban conservation report.

Madame Quach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McLean, I'll come back to a question I asked you about the Convention on Biological Diversity, under which Canada wanted to preserve 17% of its land areas. I am not sure I understood your explanation. You said that Canada had about 10% in protected areas because some areas were inaccessible. However, France, New Zealand and the United States probably also have inaccessible areas and those countries have managed to reach higher goals in land preservation.

I also asked you if, in your opinion, we would be able to reach the rate of 17% by 2020. You didn't know if you could answer, but when the Commissioner of the Environment appeared before us, he told us that it was not at all the case given the slow pace at which Canada sets targets and applies preservation techniques.

Regarding inaccessible land, do you have an explanation?

[Robert McLean]

I think what we're seeing is the beginning of a process to protect areas that previously haven't been accessible. An example I would mention is the protected area strategy in the Northwest Territories, where development is beginning to happen, but in concert with development is an interest in designating an additional protected area. Parks Canada has initiatives there and so does Environment Canada. That will add to the total.

I think as we see areas that now aren't developed—and you can see them on any map of Canada, particularly in the boreal forest. As development happens, there will be interest in protecting those areas.

There are two really key examples of what I'm talking about. One is Plan Nord in Quebec, where the provincial government has committed to protect 50% of the northern boreal by 2035. If that's accomplished, that's a very significant contribution to achieving a 17% objective. Ontario has a similar plan with respect to northern Ontario to conserve larger portions of its boreal forest.

My last comment would be that, as mentioned previously, Canada hasn't adopted that 17%. We're still in the process of consulting on goals, targets, and indicators for biodiversity.

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

If I understand correctly, in this area, we are still consulting and not acting. We are still behind.

I will now go to another question.

Let's talk about the national wildlife areas whose funding was reduced. You say there are targets for cuts. On the other hand, you say that other parks are being created. I find that a bit inconsistent. Other parks are being created, but at the same time there are cuts to national reserves and certain parks. The Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, for example, is home to over 200 plant and animal species, some of which are not found elsewhere in Quebec.

How can you explain the fact that there are such drastic 60% reductions when other parks are being created elsewhere? Don't you try to conserve before creating something else?

[Robert McLean]

The investment Environment Canada makes in its protected areas system is larger now than it was, say, 10 years ago, in my career. The funding to which you refer is driven by the level of service that we need to provide to people in the protected areas you're talking about. It is important that we have the right investment for the desired level of service. That doesn't preclude Environment Canada from advancing other protected areas initiatives.

With respect to those new areas, additional funding was provided, but expressly for those protected areas, such as the protected areas in the Northwest Territories. We've developing something called Scott Islands on our Pacific coast.

So there's funding to assist us with developing those areas, but my response to the main part of your question is that we're just trying to have the right investment for the level of service we have to provide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Madame Quach.

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

We do have a few more minutes till 10:15. I'm going to give Ms. Rempel one last round, and then we have to move into our in camera session. The committee had agreed to meet for the first hour and a half in public and then move in camera.