Environment Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

What should I then make of the fact that there were almost half as many petitions this year as compared to previous years? Is that because the message is not getting out there, because the people do not see the relevance of signing petitions? Do you have an explanation?

[Neil Maxwell]

Yes, indeed, we received only 12 petitions last year. Normally, we receive about 20 or 25 per year. We think that it is just a natural fluctuation in our system. Just like ecosystems, we have fluctuations too. There is no specific reason to explain the decrease in the number of petitions.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I also read that, this year, federal departments and agencies replied to 86% of the petitions in the required time. That may seem higher than the pass mark, but, in previous years, 100% of the petitions received a response in the required time.

How do you explain that decrease? Is it because you have fewer staff, fewer resources, or were the questions too complex?

[Neil Maxwell]

We received only 12 petitions this year. The 86% response rate just indicates that one or two of them were late. I do not think it represents anything systemic in the government.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It is still odd. In the past, when there were 25 petitions, the response rate was 100%. This year, with 12 petitions, the response rate drops to 86%. A light surely has to go on somewhere.

Could you give us an answer, both for my benefit, and through us, for all Canadians who sign petitions in the hope that they will be of value and will make a worthwhile contribution to the debate? Do you have an example of a petition that could have motivated the government to move forward on an environmental issue?

[Neil Maxwell]

When we reply to petitions, we explain the government's activities to Canadians. From time to time, the government makes a commitment as the result of a petition.

I will let Andrew comment.

[Andrew Ferguson]

A few years ago, we received a petition about nuclear facilities and the government's obligations, that is to say the insurance that the government had in place to cover those facilities. As a response to that petition, the government committed to review that insurance coverage. I think the review is still ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin, your time is up.

We'll move now to Mr. Lunney for five minutes.

Thank you very much.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thanks to our witnesses for being here today. I want to pick up chapter 7 and the criticisms in your report about Parks Canada.

Since 2006, we have expanded our parks footprint by some 30%. That is a historic expansion. There's the Nahanni National Park, Great Bear Rainforest, the eastern part of the Great Slave Lake, Ramparts River, Gwaii Haanas National Park and, as recently as early this year, Sable Island. That would be 10% of the second largest country on earth—and bigger than many of the countries of the world—now protected under the Parks Canada system.

In your report you mention that Parks Canada has only assessed 41% of the parks' ecosystems and that a third of those are in decline. I just want to follow up on that point. A third of 60% would mean that 20% are in decline. Could you just comment briefly on how many were status quo and how many had actually improved?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The math would be 30%. They've only assessed 60%, but it's reasonable to expect that if you find in that 60% there are 30% in decline, this is probably the case across the system.

As for the particular numbers, I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr. Ferguson, to talk about the other two categories. In some cases, my recollection is that there are certainly some cases in which they are improving, thanks to the efforts that Parks Canada has made to improve ecological integrity. Because of those efforts, there are ecosystems that are improving. Most of them are stable, and as we've said, a third of them are in decline.

[Andrew Ferguson]

Thank you.

Yes, as we report, I guess the inverse of our statistic is that 60% of the park ecosystems have been assessed, and there is a report produced by the agency that tells which of these ecosystems are stable, in decline, or have been--

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Are you able to give us a number?

[Andrew Ferguson]

No, I'd have to get back to you on that. The agency is here today and may be able to provide you with that.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Okay, thank you for that.

I just want to move on in the same theme.

Despite our having embarked on the largest national parks restoration program in the history of national parks, you give us almost no real credit for the on-the-ground conservation, while the World Wildlife Federation gave us the Gift to the Earth award for the major results achieved. Why does your report virtually ignore that accomplishment?

[Neil Maxwell]

Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear on this point: we are quite concerned by the fact that Parks Canada has a backlog of work to do, but we're also extremely complimentary of what it's managed to do since the panel in 2000.

We've been in nine parks. We've been on the ground. We've seen what they've done. Parks Canada has done some impressive work to protect the ecosystems in Canada. Nothing that we have to say about the work that remains to be done should at all detract from that fact.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

At least in terms of balance, when a lot of good work has been done, it's perhaps helpful to recognize it. For example, expanding the Nahanni legally gives protection to some 500 grizzlies. That would be a huge conservation gain and it seems to me that would be a significant ecological improvement toward the objectives we're looking at.

I want to go to another aspect here quickly. In terms of managing biodiversity, is it your understanding that the SARA actually applies to subspecies? Are subspecies of as much concern as species in general? Was that the intent of the act, to protect subspecies?

[Neil Maxwell]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask one of my colleagues. It's not an issue, frankly, that I've delved into extensively, so I'll ask my colleague.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Just before you do, let me give an example of what I'm leading to, from my own riding. We have a small bird called the vesper sparrow. It's a nice evening songbird on the prairies. It's a grassland bird. It's common across North America. They're common from Louisiana all the way up to northern Alberta, but they're not common on the coast. We have a shortage of grasslands on the coast. But they have a subspecies of this common sparrow on Vancouver Island. It's only found in one place. There are five nesting species, possibly ten. They're not sure if they're counting the same ones. They want to declare a critical habitat at the Nanaimo Airport. The south end has a parking lot and they want to declare it as critical habitat for this very unusual species. It's a common species, but it is a subspecies that's on the coast.

Is it your understanding that the intention of the act was to capture small numbers of animals that are actually very common in North America?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Lunney, I want to give Mr. Maxwell time to respond. Your time is up.

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask my colleagues if they can speak to that specific issue. Again, it's not something I've personally been engaged in.

[James McKenzie]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would not necessarily be in a position to understand the original intention of the legislation when it was drafted, but my understanding is certainly that with respect to subspecies, there's that whole issue of diversity in species. My understanding is that one of the efforts is to ensure that type of diversity. So even though it may be a small population that's somewhat isolated, the overall intent is to try to maintain that diversity within ecosystems and within species.

I think that's my understanding of the general intention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Hopefully we can clarify that with our officials later.

Mr. Lunney, we're quite a bit over time.

We're going to give Mr. Choquette two and a half minutes to finish up.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to have heard Mr. Lunney talk about the sage-grouse or the beluga. Maybe another time.

In chapter 4 of your audit, you mention that Environment Canada has made little progress to correct the weaknesses in its monitoring activities and that, in fact, its site monitoring is sporadic.

Why do you say that the site monitoring is sporadic? How does Environment Canada explain that?

[Neil Maxwell]

We used the word “sporadic” to indicate that there was no systematic monitoring, no monitoring at specific intervals. The department conducts its monitoring when staff is available at a site and when it is able to do so.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Do you mean that, if there are no employees at a site, no monitoring is done?