Environment Committee on May 1st, 2018

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll get started. Today we have in front of us the reports of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, spring, 2018.

I had the pleasure of chairing the meeting where you introduced your reports. They are very pertinent to our committee and to the fisheries committee. Thank you very much for coming today with your team. I'll just introduce them, if I may: Sharon Clark, principal; Andrew Hayes, principal; and, Kimberley Leach, principal. You've been in front of us many times, and we do appreciate having you back here.

Of course, we have Julie Gelfand, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. We have you here for an hour. Then we have the departments from 12 to 1.

I'll give you the floor, Commissioner.

[Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you so much. I'm really pleased to be here today to discuss our spring 2018 reports, which were tabled in the House of Commons last Tuesday.

Sharon Clark was the principal on the salmon aquaculture/salmon farming chapter, Andrew Hayes was the principal on the biodiversity chapter, and Kim Leach was the principal on the sustainable development goals. That's just so you know which ones they were responsible for.

These audits show that the Government of Canada's efforts to achieve sustainable development are still falling short of integrating the economy, society, and the environment. This is not the first time I've raised this concern.

In these spring 2018 audits, we assessed Canada's readiness to achieve the United Nations' 2030 agenda for sustainable development. We also examined salmon farming and conserving biodiversity. In all three, we found examples where the federal government was not integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development.

In our audit, we examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency oversaw the salmon farming industry to protect wild fish. This industry creates risks for wild fish, including exposure to diseases, drugs and pesticides.

We found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada does conduct research on these and other risks. We also found that the department determines where salmon farms can be located or expanded and under what conditions farms may operate.

However, we found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had no national standard for nets and other equipment to prevent escapes from fish farms, nor did it adequately enforce compliance with aquaculture regulations. As well, the department had not set limits on the amount of drugs and pesticides that fish farms can use to treat diseases and parasites. This is important because drugs and pesticides used in salmon farming can harm wild fish, especially those living on the ocean floor.

The department had completed only one-tenth of risk assessments for key known diseases, and it was not addressing new and emerging diseases. Most importantly, we found that the department was not monitoring the health of wild fish. As a result, Fisheries and Oceans Canada had no way of knowing what impacts salmon farming has on the health of wild fish.

These findings led us to conclude that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not managed risks from salmon farming in a way that protected wild fish. Among our recommendations, we stated that the department should clearly articulate the level of risk to wild fish that it accepts when enabling the aquaculture industry.

Moving on now to biodiversity, our audit examined whether Environment and Climate Change Canada had provided the national leadership required to meet Canada's 2020 biodiversity commitment.

In our view, Canada will not meet its commitment. We found that the five federal departments and agencies we audited had made uneven progress in their efforts to meet six specific biodiversity targets. In addition, Environment and Climate Change Canada had not provided the required national leadership and coordination.

Environment and Climate Change Canada has focused its leadership efforts on attending international meetings on behalf of Canada, creating national committees, and coordinating the production of reports. However, the department did not coordinate actions with its federal, provincial, and territorial partners to achieve the 2020 biodiversity targets.

Let's turn to our audit which looked at seven federal departments and agencies to assess whether the government was prepared to implement the United Nations' 2030 agenda for sustainable development. This audit is Canada's contribution to an effort by auditors general from around the world to assess their government's preparedness to implement international sustainable development commitments.

Canada adopted the 2030 agenda in 2015 as part of a worldwide effort to achieve the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals. These goals call for action in many areas to achieve a sustainable world, including quality education, sustainable cities, economic growth, and biodiversity conservation. Three years since making this commitment, the government is not prepared to implement the United Nations' 2030 agenda. It does not have a whole-of-government approach, and leadership to implement is split among five departments.

In my opinion, it's difficult to make progress with 10 hands on the wheel.

We also found that the government has no communication or engagement strategy to include other levels of government and Canadians. Lastly, it has yet to develop a complete set of national targets.

Although data is being collected to measure Canada's performance against the 2030 agenda's global indicators, we found no system to measure, monitor and report on progress against national targets once they are defined.

Without a clear leader, an implementation plan, and accurate and ongoing measurement and monitoring of results, Canada will not be able to fulfill the commitments it made to its citizens, and to the United Nations.

Given the risks to sustainable development we identified in these and in previous audits, we still have not seen the federal government integrate in a meaningful way the economy, society and the environment.

That concludes my opening remarks. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

We'll start questioning with Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone.

I appreciate and commend you again for the excellent reports that your team has done. I had a chance to read them over the last few days.

I was particularly interested in the salmon farming report, and that's where I'll tend to focus my questions. Coming from British Columbia, salmon and the health of our wild salmon stock are very important to us.

I have a couple of questions. One of them that struck me in the report was this idea of having DFO as the protector of wild salmon stock, but also, it seemed to be the promoter of aquaculture, of fish farming. It struck me that there may be a potential for conflict in that role.

I didn't see that clearly come out in the report. You talk about both roles, but did you get into exploring if DFO is best positioned to do that? It seemed that perhaps someone else, like CFIA, might be better positioned to be the champion of fish farming, and let DFO focus on the protection of the wild fish stock.

Are you able to provide any comment on whether that was part of your considerations? Did you explore that aspect of departmental responsibility?

[Julie Gelfand]

We did talk a little about that. This was mentioned in the Cohen commission report on the same issue. The way I would describe it is that I think Fisheries and Oceans Canada is at risk of claims that it prioritizes aquaculture over the protection of wild fish. Let me tell you why I think it's at risk.

There was no threshold for action when wild fish stocks decline. If a wild fish stock goes down, there's no threshold at which the department clicks into gear.

There was no validation of industry self-reporting on the use of drugs and pesticides. The industry provides those reports, but there is no system to find out if those reports are valid, no system at all.

There was no requirement to minimize the development of resistance to drugs and pesticides on the part of industry and no requirement for it to monitor the ocean floor near or underneath those pens.

We found little enforcement of aquaculture regulations. We also found that long-term funding is given for research done with the aquaculture industry, and I guess in support of the industry. The research that's done in support of the department doing the regulating is only supported by short-term funding. Given that whole picture, we think the department is at risk of being seen as prioritizing one over the other.

In terms of where the government may think about moving if it decides to split, it's Parliament's job to make that decision. I'm not sure that the CFIA would be the right place. The places you could look at, or that have been mentioned by other people, include Agriculture Canada, because this is farming; Industry Canada, because this is an industry; and Natural Resources Canada, because this is a natural resource. Any one of those three I know have been discussed if the regulatory role is split from the promoter-of-the-industry role. I don't think that CFIA would be the right one, personally. Those would be some the government could think about.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You mentioned some of the components being added to open net pens for disease control and growth, and things like that. I didn't see it in the report, but did you at all explore the idea of closed pens versus open net pens? I was surprised to see there weren't regulations or national standards for things like open net.

I wonder if there are other alternatives we should be looking at, such as closed net, and if you have any observations on that, if you did any exploration of that topic.

[Julie Gelfand]

That's not something we audited, although we mention in our report that in some cases, that is happening. Right now, closed pen on land is used to raise the fish to a certain size, and then they're put into the ocean. That's not something we looked at in our audit. It is something that may be coming in the future.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I understand that on the west coast, there are some small closed pens inland. I think it's Kuterra that is often cited. They've had some support from the government for the work they've done.

I wondered if that had been looked at. Obviously not. I think there may be opportunities to explore that down the road.

[Julie Gelfand]

You'll see a little bit in our report. Paragraph 1.5 is more in the “Context” area as opposed to our “Findings”.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

I was also struck a bit by the differences in Canada. On the west coast, salmon really is part of our identity. It's part of the indigenous culture. It's very intertwined with our identity as British Columbians and west coasters.

I wonder how consistent the regulations are on the east coast versus the west coast or if there is an opportunity to have different regulations for B.C. versus Atlantic Canada and if that was part of the exploration.

[Julie Gelfand]

What I can tell you is that on the west coast, there are Pacific aquaculture regulations that are specific to the west coast. There is not such a thing for the east coast, but the Fisheries Act applies on both coasts. That's how it works right now.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Does that serve us in protecting...?

[Julie Gelfand]

That would be a question you would have to ask the minister.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Sopuck.

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

Thank you very much.

I see that at the very beginning, Commissioner, you have a definition of biological diversity. It's basically everything that's out there, the variety of species, ecosystems and ecological processes found on earth. It's a very broad definition.

In terms of species in Canada, what would be the goal of biodiversity conservation? Is it basically saving every single species in Canada? Is it native species only? Is it native plus introduced species? What should be our priorities?

[Julie Gelfand]

Unfortunately, I can't tell you what the priorities are. I do know that Canada has set 19 goals. Those were determined in 2015. They are in four areas: protection of lands and waters, the area of sustainability, information to Canadians, and having Canadians connected to nature. Those are the some of the goals that Canada has set out already.

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

Okay.

I'm very much an on the ground kind of conservationist. I was struck when you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Environment Canada is spending a lot of time in meetings travelling around the world. It sounds like that it's at the expense of actual on-the-ground conservation.

Is that a fair comment?

[Julie Gelfand]

In terms of on-the-ground conservation, we looked at six targets specifically. They have reached a couple of those targets already.

They have an inventory of their protected areas. That's one target they've reached. Statistics Canada has some work on the issue of natural capital. That's another one they have already reached.

One they are likely to reach on the ground, or in the ocean in this case, would be the target to achieve 10% protected areas in the marine zone. They are not likely to reach the 17% on the terrestrial side.

As well, we looked at two other targets. It doesn't look like they are going to reach the species at risk target.

Agricultural lands would be another target. That was a target of maintaining or increasing biodiversity on agricultural lands. We don't think they're going to reach that target, and the one on water pollution as well.

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

I noticed that on page 4, when you talk about wetlands, grasslands, and deciduous Carolinian forests, those plant and animal communities largely exist on the privately owned landscape. It's quite clear to me that the main biodiversity issues are on privately owned land.

In your view, is habitat protection the only tool to conserve biodiversity?

[Julie Gelfand]

We didn't look at that issue of habitat conservation.

Obviously, as the theory has it, yes, habitat conservation is one of ways of protecting biodiversity, but that's not a question we looked at in our audit.

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

That's interesting.

On page 20 you talk about about the capacity of agricultural lands to conserve wildlife. I had an interesting meeting with Croplife Canada. One thing that's omitted from your report is the contribution of modern intensive agriculture to biodiversity conservation and the fact that farming is now done on less land than it needs to be done. For example, if we abandon all modern farm practices such as chemicals and fertilizers, at least in terms of canola, we would have to farm 19 million more acres or basically 14 million more football fields of land. Modern agriculture is a terrific conservation tool because there is much land that can be left for conservation.

It's a characteristic of modern agriculture that's always overlooked. When I drive through my own rural constituency, there's still lots of wildlife habitat. The best land is being farmed even better, producing as much as it ever did, while reserving the rest of the land for conservation. I find that interesting.

The reason I asked the question about habitat protection is that one thing that's always missing in biodiversity conservation is the role of active human management of diversity. I would draw your attention to a very interesting program by the National Audubon Society, North America's leading bird conservation society.

As you know, Commissioner, grassland birds are very much in trouble. The Audubon Society started a program called conservation ranching, wherein regenerative grazing practices are adopted that mimic the past grazing by bison. I could go on. It seems to me that people in government and organizations always forget the role of the people who live on the land. Not only do they have traditional knowledge of fish and wildlife on their land, they know the techniques to conserve them.

Can you make a quick comment on the role of local, traditional knowledge in farming and ranching in terms of biodiversity conservation?

[Julie Gelfand]

We looked at the issue of whether Environment Canada was playing a leadership role in achieving the 2020 biodiversity targets, and we found that they had defined their role as leader quite narrowly. They had not worked with their federal-provincial-territorial or even NGO partners to come up with a plan to achieve the targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, before I move to our next questioner, I just want to recognize and welcome MP Dan Albas. Thank you very much for joining us today.

I see Elizabeth May is also with us at the table. Thank you.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sure that Ed would love to pass over his questions to Elizabeth in his absence.