Environment Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call to order the third meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I realize that the clock at the back doesn't quite show 11 o'clock, but our BlackBerrys are all showing 11, so I'm going to begin. We do have a quorum.

We welcome today the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Neil Maxwell. He has with him James McKenzie, Bruce Sloan, and Andrew Ferguson. Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Maxwell, I understand that you have an opening statement you'd like to make, so please proceed. Welcome again to our committee.

[Neil Maxwell, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

I'm pleased to present my fall of 2013 report that was tabled in the House of Commons last Tuesday. In this report we looked at what the federal government has done to protect nature and to advance sustainable development on behalf of Canada. To support the understanding of these issues, we have included in our report a backgrounder on biological diversity. This document explains the nature and importance of biodiversity, the threats to it, and some good management practices.

As in past reports, our work has led us to conclude that the government has not met key commitments, deadlines, and obligations to protect Canada's natural spaces. Let me give you a few examples from our most recent audits.

When we looked at the conservation of migratory birds, we found that Environment Canada had missed key deadlines. More than half of the conservation strategies being developed by the department have been overdue since 2010. In addition to playing a key role in our ecosystems, for example as pollinators, birds are considered good indicators of the health of the environment. I am concerned that some groups of birds, such as shorebirds, have declined by 40% to 60% since the 1970s. Declines in bird populations highlight the need for action on conservation strategies.

While Environment Canada and its partners have achieved good results with their efforts to restore waterfowl populations, the department’s conservation planning is lagging for other groups of birds.

Improvements in waterfowl populations show that results can be achieved through partnerships, using good conservation planning and clear objectives. Environment Canada needs to apply these types of approaches to help with the conservation of other bird groups.

One of Canada's main approaches to protecting biodiversity is to establish protected areas to maintain habitat for wildlife, including migratory birds and species at risk. In our audit of protected areas for wildlife, we found that Environment Canada has not met its responsibilities for preparing management plans and monitoring the condition of the protected areas it manages.

Habitat loss is recognized as the greatest threat to plants and animals in Canada. Environment Canada's protected areas are roughly the size of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined, and the department acknowledges that the state of more than half of these areas is less than adequate. The department's management plans for its protected areas are largely outdated and monitoring is insufficient to track ecosystem changes and address emerging threats.

Given the poor state of many protected areas and the pressures they face, Environment Canada needs to develop relevant management plans to ensure that its protected areas fulfill their intended purpose as a refuge for wildlife.

Turning to our audit of ecological integrity in national parks, we also found that despite Parks Canada's significant efforts in many areas, the agency is struggling to protect ecosystems in Canada's parks. Parks Canada has missed important deadlines and targets and is facing a significant backlog of work. It has yet to assess the condition of 41% of park ecosystems. Of those it has assessed, many are in poor condition and many are in decline. The agency has not clarified how, nor by when, it intends to clear this backlog and address threats to the integrity of ecosystems in Canada's parks.

Given the increasing threats to park ecosystems and the challenges Parks Canada faces, the agency needs to clearly map out how it will avoid falling further behind in its efforts to protect ecological integrity in Canada's national parks.

Our audit of the plans and strategies to support the recovery of species at risk also showed missed commitments and significant delays in planning activities. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada have not met their obligations under the Species at Risk Act to develop recovery strategies. Of the 360 strategies they had to produce by March 2013, roughly 40% were overdue. Environment Canada is responsible for most of this backlog, with 84% of its strategies lagging by more than three years. At the current rate of progress, we estimate that it would take the department at least 10 years to catch up.

Recovery strategies and plans are the road map to the recovery of a species. They set out the actions needed to stop or reverse a species' decline. With so many overdue, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada are missing the necessary tools to direct recovery efforts.

We also examined funding programs that promote the recovery of species listed under the Species at Risk Act. In that audit, we were pleased to note that Environment Canada is tracking the results of individual programs. Going forward, the department should roll up results across programs to fully understand what its funding achieves.

In another audit, we looked at whether Environment Canada had fulfilled selected responsibilities under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. While the department has led the development of goals and targets for Canada, it has not defined the actions needed to achieve them. Canada's targets under the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity are key to conserving biodiversity in our country. Achieving them will require a concerted effort from many players, from governments to businesses to individual Canadians.

Given the amount of work that needs to be done by 2020, Environment Canada must play an active role in developing and coordinating priority actions to address increasing threats to biodiversity.

In this report, we also present our reviews of federal and departmental sustainable development strategies. Canada's sustainable development strategies are a key tool for directing the government's activities and communicating results in this area.

Though the government is producing sustainable development plans and providing reports to Canadians on its progress, we found that these documents are not fulfilling their potential. They do not clearly communicate past progress or future direction.

Finally, I am pleased to see that Canadians continue to use the environmental petitions process to raise their concerns with federal departments. This year, petitions touched on federal research on hormone-disrupting substances, risks related to the proposed increase in tanker traffic in British Columbia, and the long-term management of federal contaminated sites.

In closing, these audits show that despite some important accomplishments, government has not met key commitments, deadlines, and obligations to protect Canada's wildlife and natural spaces. The challenge of protecting Canada's natural heritage is immense and the pressures are growing.

So where does that leave us?

I believe it is time for departments to follow through on their commitments and improve on their results. In the face of growing pressures and significant challenges, it is clear that to make any headway in protecting Canada's environment, government needs to look differently at the problems and find new solutions.

Mr. Chair, I would like to sincerely thank you and your committee members for the invitation to appear today regarding our report. You as parliamentarians contribute to the effectiveness of our work because of the crucial role you play in the accountability process. You do so when you invite senior officials, as you have today, to answer questions about our findings and describe their action plan to implement responses to our recommendations.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. We would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maxwell.

We will now move to the opening round of questions. We'll begin with the government side. Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank everyone for being here today.

I'll get right to the questions.

Mr. Commissioner, your report identifies the need to increase transparency and engagement. However, consultation and collaboration are mentioned as key factors contributing to delays in completing recovery documents.

Now, given the commitment of our government to consult with aboriginal communities and other experts in the field, isn't it appropriate to ensure that recovery documents are supported by the people who have important information to contribute and are best placed to implement the recovery?

I ask because it seems like a catch-22, in that the delays are being caused by extensive engagement. I was wondering if you could comment on that.

[Neil Maxwell]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

Consultation is absolutely important here. The federal government has some important places where it can act on species at risk, particularly the federal lands. Those are not inconsiderable: the protected areas of Environment Canada, as I mentioned, are equal to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That's a large area where the federal government can act on its own, as it can in national parks and other federal lands.

That said, I quite agree. I think action on species at risk depends upon action by everyone. We really signal that as an important area for action.

In terms of the impact on timelines, we know that this is some of the explanation for the delays that we have noted in our report. I think I'd just simply highlight the importance of getting those tools in place. It is a concern that of the over 500 species at risk in Canada, at the moment only 7 have the recovery strategy and the action plan necessary.

I support the efforts of the government to try to deal with that backlog.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Your report does seem to be critical of Environment Canada's progress in completing these recovery strategies for species at risk. It's my understanding that the reason for the slower than expected completion of these strategies is the extensive consultation process that has been undertaken. For instance, when Environment Canada was consulting on the boreal caribou, they held not one but two rounds of consultation where over 500 aboriginal communities were contacted.

Don't you think the delay can be justified if it's due to the engagement of aboriginal communities?

[Neil Maxwell]

Again, I think the collaboration is very important.

I will say that when we looked at the recovery strategies and action plans that have been completed, even though we are critical that there are far too few of them, they are extremely well done. I've looked at those myself. I'm impressed.

We were critical of action plans in many other areas. When you look at an action plan that's done for the recovery of species by those three departments, they're very thorough. You can go to the back and find, very clearly, what projects are going to be done, who's going to lead them, and what it's going to cost. So they are extremely well done.

The consultation does take time. I would be the last person to say that we should rush it and do it poorly. However, I come back to saying that these are species at risk. We estimated that it will take Environment Canada 10 years to deal with that backlog. Many species at risk are undergoing quite significant and steep, rapid declines. The beluga population in the last 10 years has declined by 10% to 20%. I think the urgency of the matter suggests that the department needs to accelerate its efforts.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

In your report you are critical of Environment Canada's progress on the recovery strategies. It appears that you somewhat overlook the fact that roughly 70% of the identification of critical habitat has been completed. I'm sure you know that this step in the recovery strategy process is the most laborious and time-consuming. This is to say that the majority of the work for the species that require these recovery strategies is complete.

Why does it seem that you've overlooked this important piece of information when commenting on Environment Canada's performance? When I look at it, a lot of these timelines are self-imposed—things that we have put forward.

In looking around the world, I'm curious if you're aware of any other jurisdictions that are doing work this complicated. If so, how many are actually out there doing this type of work? Could you comment on those questions, please?

[Neil Maxwell]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

We do comment. We have a slightly different number. That may simply be due to the fact we finished our work slightly earlier than the numbers you might have. At the time in we did the work, 40% of the recovery strategies were missing critical habitat.

Certainly identifying critical habitat in some of these species is quite self-evident. In many other species, scientists don't know what that critical habitat is. That does add time to it.

On the question of whether we've looked what other countries are doing in comparable cases, we did not do that in this particular piece of work.

I think I would maybe underscore two things again. The fact that critical habitat so often isn't understood well by scientists speaks to one of those big challenges. We talk quite often in the report of the big challenges facing the people who are charged with this. That's one of them. Scientists really don't understand well how ecosystems are working. That does make it a practical difficulty when they're doing recovery strategies.

Again, I would just come back to the urgency of the situation to suggest that work does need to accelerate.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think we acknowledge that. I was wondering if you could acknowledge that a lot of these timelines that we put out there are self-imposed ones. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it seems that Canada is leading the world in this type of work. I'm not aware of other jurisdictions that are doing this work as well as Canada is doing it.

[Neil Maxwell]

The timelines, Mr. Chair, are self-imposed in the sense that they are embedded in laws passed by Parliament. They are imposed. It is something that is a hard requirement under the act.

Again, I can't comment on how Canada is doing relative to others. I'm struck by the fact that we have over 500 species at risk in this country now and at this point in time only seven have both those tools in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just would like to say that I think Canada overall.... When you look at the very aggressive timelines that have been put forward, when you start to consult as intensively as we have, there are certain things you can predict and certain things you cannot predict. But I think it's important, as the commissioner said, that we get this right and do our best to get these in as quickly as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll move now to Ms. Leslie for seven minutes.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much for appearing here and for this report. It's good reading.

My first question is really an overall one, not looking at a particular chapter.

When you started your comments, Mr. Maxwell, you said that government had not met key commitments, deadlines, and targets. As an opposition member who wants to hold government to account, what I want to know is why?

Is it due to cutbacks? Are these targets impossible to achieve? Is it, as Mr. Carrie alludes to, a problem with consultation eating up a lot of that time? Why exactly aren't we meeting these targets and commitments? Is it management? Is this a question of structure within the organization and management?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, that's an important question.

I think there are multiple factors here. I think in some cases resources are a factor. I would say, though, that it's important to remember that these problems really date from some time ago. We talked about many of these problems back in the 1990s. In the time since, there have been periods of reductions in resources and periods where resources have been increased. So I think it's a factor, but it's only a factor of several.

I do think that in many of our audits we found that management could use existing resources better. In some cases we identified processes that could be simplified and streamlined. The process to update a management plan at Environment Canada has 60 steps in it, so there are some cases where things could be simplified. That's important. I'd also underscore the number of times we found unclear plans and objectives, which can't help but lead to a situation where efforts are not clearly focused. That's never a good use of resources.

Part of this is setting priorities. It's management 101—setting priorities and following through. We auditors talk about that a lot, but we talk about it a lot because we find those absences a lot.

The final thing I'd come back to, as I did in answer to an earlier question, is that these are immense challenges. The ecosystems in Canada are on the receiving end of all the other environmental problems we face: climate change, pollution, and invasive species. So a lot of this is just the immensity of the task.

I was reminded of an analogy one of my predecessors once used. He said this is like trying to go up the down escalator. It's not that the government's not doing important things; a lot of this is simply just the immensity of the challenges.

I am quite troubled by many of the trends that I see in the ecosystems in Canada.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Your management 101 comment strikes a chord with me because you do point out that there have been successes. There are well-managed projects out there, but clearly it's not happening across the board.

I'd like to move on to targets. You did talk about not meeting targets or commitments or deadlines. We've had a lot of talk at previous committee hearings by some members about how targets are politically motivated, that they're sort of not worth the paper they're printed on. I personally disagree with that.

I'm wondering if you see these targets as achievable. Do you see them as being real, based-on-science, as things that we can work towards? Do these targets actually make sense?

[Neil Maxwell]

It's difficult to say across the board, obviously. By and large I would say that the targets do make sense. I mean, they are based on science. The targets for the Species at Risk Act are self-imposed. They are in law, but again, when I look at how quickly species at risk are degrading, how the population is deteriorating, there's a reason for urgency. So by and large, as I look across these audits, Mr. Chair, I don't see a situation where unreasonably stringent targets have been reached.

I can give you a few examples. There's a Parks Canada one I can give, but I don't want to burn up the member's time.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

No. Your perspective there is what I'm looking for and I appreciate it. Thank you.

I want to move on to some other questions around funding for our species at risk. You say the department is not in a position to measure what aspects of recovery plans it's providing funding for. So there's this idea that we don't know how effective the funding is and what the end results are. I look at the last budget and I think that about $20 million is going to the Nature Conservancy, or somewhere around that. I'm not saying that the Nature Conservancy isn't doing good work, but it's concerning to me that we would be handing over $20 million to any organization.

I know it's clear in black and white in your report, but can you tell us a bit more about how we don't know how effective that money is or what it's being used for, or if it's cheating the end goals? That's correct, isn't it?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been an auditor for 31 years now, so I've looked at this issue in many programs. We were quite pleased to see the extent to which these programs' results were being measured. So by and large this is a good-news story, I think. For each of the five programs they understand what's happening, what projects are being funded, the results, and how much habitat is being protected. So they have all the individual pieces of a results picture. It's really a matter of understanding better. For example, with the piping plover, there are 80 different projects across those five programs that are supporting it.

It's really about pulling all of this together. That's what's really important for us. That then allows Environment Canada to understand, for that roughly $73 million being spent each year, how close they are getting to what needs to be done to assist in implementing the recovery strategy, in this example, for the piping plover.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Are the goals actually being met with these projects? The projects are well tracked, but not the goals.

[Neil Maxwell]

Yes. That's a good way of summarizing it, Chair.

As to the $20 million, I don't know much about that. Perhaps the government officials appearing afterward will help. I think that money's going through the natural areas conservation program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Leslie. Your time is up.

Now to Mr. Sopuck for seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

The issue of targets relates to the issue of definition. For example, if a farmer wants to grow a tonne of wheat per acre, has a target of a tonne of wheat per acre, we know what a tonne of wheat is. So a biodiversity target, as I see the word throughout your report, depends on the definition of biodiversity. Can you define biodiversity for me, as succinctly as you can?

[Neil Maxwell]

Chair, thank you, that's a good question.

There's no single definition of biodiversity that we've found fits all situations. In the background document we provide, we talk about that from different perspectives. Sometimes it's defined in terms of restoring natural cycles. The problem there is defining what's a natural cycle. Biodiversity is often looked at—and I think this is probably a much more useful way of looking at it—from an ecological services perspective. Here I mean the services that are being provided by an ecosystem, either to us or to others.

We do know that there's no particular definition of biodiversity. That's an important discussion and it would be a very good question to ask of the officials who will appear after me, but I don't sense that's a major constraint on a day-to-day basis for the people who are actually putting these things in place.