Evidence of meeting #46 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was habitat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses for being here today and, as my colleague said, for their excellent presentations. I applaud you for your leadership, not only here in Canada but internationally.
Commissioner, on what you said about sustainable development, I welcome those comments.
I was wondering if the panel could comment on how Canada and the United States have worked together over the years. We know that species know no borders, and we know the importance of these international agreements and communications. Could you comment on how effective and how successful this working relationship has been between Canada and the U.S.? We've worked together for over 100 years for waterfowl conservation. How's that as an example? How does it compare to other agreements in other parts of the world, such as Europe?
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
That's a good question, and you're absolutely right. We have a number of conservation partnerships with the United States for particular species. I think of the porcupine caribou herd between Alaska and the Yukon, which has been successfully jointly managed for many years now under an international agreement. The same is true for polar bears.
With respect to waterfowl, which is the basis of the longest standing conservation partnership we have with the United States, since 1916, the first half of the 1900s was really about managing for the sustainable harvest and use of waterfowl. I think our two countries working together were successful in that. We had species going extinct soon after 1900—we know only too well that the passenger pigeon went extinct in 1914—but that was the impetus to put the convention in place and to manage the harvest. By 1947 when the Canadian Wildlife Service started, the harvest was being sustainably managed. We continued to improve management of the harvest of the species, and by the mid-1980s it really became obvious that in addition to managing the harvest we needed to manage the habitat on which waterfowl depend. That's the origin of the North American waterfowl management plan. I have the opportunity to work globally on biodiversity conservation, and I know that plan is considered unique globally.
What has it meant for Canada? Since the mid-1980s, we've mobilized a $2 billion investment in wetland conservation and restoration in Canada. About $996 million of that is from the United States, about $512 million from the U.S. government, and the rest from the Canadian partnership. The federal investment in that plan over that time period is about $335 million, but it's very significant to mobilize a continental partnership around shared objectives and to have people put money on the table to the tune of $2 billion for wetland conservation.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Very good. Again I'd like to applaud you for your leadership.
I was wondering if you could let the committee know how conserved land is defined and accounted for in Canada. Is our definition different from that of other countries around the world?
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Globally we're working towards a standard definition for all types of conservation lands. For many years there's been an internationally accepted definition of protected areas. I'm referring to government-protected areas. The accounting we are doing at Environment Canada includes some areas that are not capital “P” capital “A” protected areas. We're beginning to build some privately held lands into the accounting system. For example, under the natural areas conservation program, an interest in the land is acquired through either the purchase of the land or with what we call a conservation easement. We're working towards making sure we're accounting for those lands in the inventory we're developing. Those then would count towards the 17% aspirational global biodiversity target that's been alluded to already, which was adopted internationally in 2010. Those private conservation lands make an important contribution to conservation in Canada in addition to those government-protected areas.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I think as Canadians we're all proud of our national wildlife areas. Some of my constituents have asked whether hunting is allowed in Environment Canada's national wildlife areas and if so, under what conditions and in which areas.
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
The answer is yes. We have 54 national wildlife areas, and hunting is allowed in 27 of them. We do manage for conservation outcomes. In some of the areas, to achieve our objectives, hunting is not possible. Some national wildlife areas are quite small, literally the size of the floor in this room, so they don't actually lend themselves to that kind of activity, but 27 out of 54 national wildlife areas do. I can certainly provide a list of the 27. In addition to those 27 areas, land claim beneficiaries in Nunavut are also entitled to hunt in five of our national wildlife areas in that territory.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Having hunters in these areas is not anything that you see as detrimental, right?
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
No, not at all. There are various activities that we allow in the national wildlife areas, and hunting is one of those activities. It's not detrimental to the conservation outcomes that we pursue in those areas.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
As one of my roles, I get to take part in the hunting and angling advisory panel that was mentioned. There's a lot of misinformation out there, particularly in Europe, about Canada's fur trade. I was wondering if you could describe Canada's role in protecting our fur trade.
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
We're taking two primary areas of activity.
One is the humane trapping standards. If we're talking about trapping, it's important for market access, if you will, to demonstrate to the international community the humaneness of the trapping. I won't go into more detail on that.
The second thing, and we spend most of our time speaking to other countries about this, is the solid management regime we have in place for our harvested wildlife, whether it's migratory birds, whether it's the fur-bearers, whether it's the big or small game that I alluded to earlier. There are solid management regimes in place. I don't think there's a single species that we have in Canada that we would consider endangered because of hunting or trapping.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Your time is up, Mr. Carrie.
We'll move now to Mr. McKay, for seven minutes, please.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you both for your presentations.
I'll direct my first question to the commissioner.
In your fall report of 2013 you said:
Environment Canada has made little progress in monitoring activities, conditions, and threats for the protected areas it manages. The Department’s own assessments show a lack of proper inventories and insufficient information on species at risk.
Further on, you said:
...the Department does not know the extent to which actions called for in recovery documents have been implemented through its funding programs.
At the end, you said:
Environment Canada...[has] not met...[its] legal requirements for establishing recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans under the Species at Risk Act.
The main estimates 2015-16 show a decrease of $12.5 million for species at risk. I can't square your observations and the department's response.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
You will have to ask the department.
Liberal
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I can tell you that everything we indicated in our audit report was correct as of the date we audited. Our findings are stamped approved by the department at that time, so they are correct. You'd have to ask the department about anything further.
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you for your question.
With respect to the main estimates and species at risk, part of the funding we have for the species at risk program is what is referred to as sunsetting, so that decision is yet to be taken whether or not to renew the funds that would be sunsetted, but that depends on decisions yet to be made. That explains why the number looks lower compared to previous fiscal years.
With respect to our national wildlife areas and managing them, the key recommendation from the commissioner was to put in place management plans for our protected areas, and we're moving forward in doing that. We have a number of management plans that we've posted just in the last 12 months and a number more that are in the system and waiting to be posted. We're moving forward on putting the key document in place that will allow us to manage our national wildlife areas.
With respect to recovery strategies, yes, we are behind according to the SARA timelines. A few months ago, we posted a three-year plan to, hopefully, bring us up to speed, if you will, and ensure we have recovery strategies or management plans in place for all of the species that are listed. We are moving forward on those fronts that you mentioned.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's a kind of curious choice when the environment commissioner says you're not meeting your timeliness—and you're not—and then you post a plan, and then your next choice is to sunset moneys that would have gone to the plan.
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
That's not a choice that I make as an official.
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
With respect to the budget and the amount—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Maybe we should ask the minister why she would make that choice of sunsetting those particular moneys.
I'm hoping that my colleagues will agree to have the minister come in and answer that question. I won't hold my breath, but maybe we'll see.
My second question also has to do with the mains, and it's kind of a curious set of numbers for “Biodiversity—Wildlife and Habitat”. The expenditures are $120 million, yet your mains are only $91 million for the fiscal year ending on March 31, this month, and your mains for the following year are back up to $122 million.
Why would the main estimates in effect last year be so much lower than what you apparently expended the year before?
Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I'd prefer the opportunity to look at those numbers and provide a response back to the committee following this meeting. I don't have that information in front of me.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I look forward to that response.
I'll direct the third question to both of you. It has to do with the lapsing of funds.
We are at the end of a fiscal year. There has been a pattern of lapsing funds over the entire period of time of this government. Can either of you advise as to what funds are being lapsed this year?