Environment Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

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

It's a huge constraint, simply because how can you have a target if you can't define it? You've confirmed for me yet again that these are very difficult to define. So by definition, the achieving of difficult to define targets is in and of itself extremely difficult.

What I saw in your report were a lot of comments about processes and plans and recovery strategies and so on, and very little about actual on-the-ground work. I happen to know a lot about the natural areas conservation program because I have a number of projects in my own constituency, and I even have part of my own land enrolled in the particular program. Also in the habitat stewardship program, I have a number of projects in my constituency. That's $18 million a year. Of course, we also have the famous North American waterfowl management plan, which started in 1987 and is probably the largest conservation program in world history. We can see that on the chart you put in your report about the response of migratory birds, waterfowl in particular, to that particular approach.

Don't you think that actual on-the-ground work, where we talk about hectares of land being conserved and managed in an ecological fashion, is what is really important, as opposed to strategies and plans?

[Neil Maxwell]

It is absolutely important to understand those results. In that particular audit we were quite complimentary of Environment Canada.

I don't think it's an either/or. I think the plans and the clarity of targets are equally important. So I don't think it's an either/or.

Maybe I could respond to both of those questions by giving the example that I was going to say earlier. I don't believe the lack of a definition is making it difficult to achieve targets or leaving us in a situation where targets are just picked out of thin air.

The national parks have a fire cycle. They're trying to re-establish the natural cycle of fire and regeneration. Of course, we've worked quite actively as a society to suppress fire for a long time. That has left ecosystems in a situation where they are no longer functioning as they once did.

There were questions about Parks Canada and their targets, whether they are realistic, grounded in something. The panel in 2000 recommended that the historical fire cycle be re-established. They suggested 50%. Parks Canada reduced that target and aimed for 20%. We found that only a quarter of the parks are actually achieving that reduced target.

I cite that example because, if you talk to the fire experts in national parks, they fully agree, as I do, with the member's point. It's hard to know what we're aiming for in relation to natural cycles and biodiversity. They'll talk about the fact that even though they have tree rings of historical fire cycles, they don't know if first nations have affected those earlier fires or whether that was the natural way. So they don't know what they're trying to restore it to.

My point is that in that case, as in many other cases, we are far away from re-establishing the level of natural functioning of ecosystems. At some point, this will become important. But I don't think we're there yet.

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

I strongly dispute your last statement, living next to a national park as I do. But let's leave that aside for now.

You said that species at risk are degrading. You are aware of the situation of the white pelican, the double-crested cormorant, and the peregrine falcon. These three species were on the list many years ago and have recovered. So broad statements like “all species at risk are degrading” don't help the situation. It's more important to be specific.

For example, I'll ask you if any species in Canada has gone extinct in the last 20 years? If one has, could you name it?

[Neil Maxwell]

I'll have to get back to you on that. There are cases of extirpations. Whether there is extinction everywhere on the globe—

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

Extirpation is fine. Could you name a case?

[Neil Maxwell]

I'll have to get back to the committee on that.

I hope you don't believe that I am disagreeing with the general point that I hear you making. We have been very careful in this report to talk about the success stories. A brief mention was made before of water fowl. That is an important success story. We devoted probably three pages of our report to it. I've described that in the media as a remarkable story of how, with collaboration of governments, over 300 groups have been able to restore things.

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

I was involved with implementing the North American waterfowl management plan in Manitoba many years ago. I wanted to point out that recognition should be given to the hunting community. It was the waterfowl hunters that first saw the threat to waterfowl, and they are the ones who stepped up to the plate with major resources to kick-start the thing. It's easy to come up with a list of all the partners, but it was the waterfowl hunting community and the conservation departments from the United States, Canada, and Mexico that were responsible for this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck. Your time is up.

We move now to Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and my thanks again to Mr. Maxwell and his colleagues for appearing today.

On page 3 of the first part of your report you say that the “Legislative requirements under the Species at Risk Act have not been met.” What is the legal consequence of that?

[Neil Maxwell]

I'm going to ask my colleagues if there's something specifically embedded in SARA that I'm not familiar with.

Bruce?

[Bruce Sloan, Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I don't believe there is a consequence in the act, although we can confirm that for the committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

This is a piece of legislation by the Parliament of Canada. You make the observation that they are 10 years behind and everybody shrugs their shoulders.

[Bruce Sloan]

I don't recall from reading the act whether there is a consequence, but we can confirm that to the committee.

[Neil Maxwell]

There are a number of legal tools the federal government can use, permitting and such, under SARA to achieve its objectives. I do not believe that there are any legal sanctions, if you will, on the government. That's not unusual in legislation of this sort. It's not as if something's not achieved and people go to jail.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The problem then is that legislation just becomes aspirational goals and then the government of the day gets to decide whether it's going to fund this or not fund this.

The second question has to do with page 12, where you say, “The department has not set out what plans it intends to continue doing in connection with monitoring, promoting and facilitating national implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Again, what is the legal consequence of not implementing the convention?

[Neil Maxwell]

Mr. Chair, it is an international convention. There are no international sanctions in that convention, to my knowledge.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Going to Mr. Sopuck's concern, you say, “Environment Canada's efforts on migratory bird conservation is centred primarily on waterfowl, with good results”, etc., etc. Then you critique it, and then the department responds and says, “The Department agrees with all of the recommendations”. Either something's wrong here or something's not wrong. If the department is agreeing that something is wrong, which is what you've identified here, I don't know how the government then turns around and says it is doing perfectly fine. Those two thoughts can't live in the same universe, the department agreeing and simultaneously the government saying it is meeting all of its targets and obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is that a question?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's just an observation, sir.

I have a question with respect to Parks Canada. On page 24 you talk about a decline of 15% in resources, 23% in staff, and over a third in scientific staff. It's an immense challenge. I don't disagree with that. But did you actually disaggregate Environment Canada's budget to see whether the burden of meeting deficit targets fell on one particular aspect of Environment Canada's work or another?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this instance, we're talking about Parks Canada's budget, separate from Environment Canada's, even though the same minister is responsible for both. We did not look to see how.... We really focused on the question of how they were doing on the conservation budget. Parks Canada has a number of other significant budgets. This is a very significant budget among its budgets, but only one of those. So we really just focused on the ecological integrity part of what they do, not the heritage sites and such.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Did you actually do a review of the various budget components of both Parks Canada and Environment Canada?

[Neil Maxwell]

Mr. Chair, it was only on a selective basis. In this particular case, we looked at it because, as the member mentioned, we were concerned about the extent of the backlog of work to meet the commitments Parks Canada has made. We looked at it in this particular instance largely just to understand the extent of the challenges they were facing.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Environment Canada's budget has essentially been flatlined for six years. What's Parks Canada's budget been over that six-year period?

[Neil Maxwell]

I'll ask Mr. Ferguson.

[Andrew Ferguson, Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

My recollection—and I'll get back to you with the precise budget—is that it's around $600 million for the entire agency.