Environment Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes, thank you.

To Ducks Unlimited, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, I've worked with Ducks Unlimited on several projects, and absolutely, it takes active management to keep a healthy wetland. Thank you for that.

My question will be for Nature Canada, and then perhaps I'll go back to both of you if there's time available.

In the brief that you submitted to the committee, you noted that Canada is about to lose a significant amount of federally protected land in the transfer of community pastures and grasslands to the Government of Saskatchewan. How important are these areas for conservation? What does the government need to do to ensure that a plan is in place to protect the ecological integrity of the grasslands before the transfer happens? Should these lands actually be transferred? Is government doing enough to make sure that if they do leave, they protect ecological integrity?

[Alex MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Stetski.

These are very important lands. We know that grasslands globally and nationally are one of the most endangered biomes. The PFRA community pasture lands, or the former PFRA lands, are home to some 31 federally listed species at risk, as well as their habitat. We know habitat loss is one of the main stressors facing our species at risk nationally. This example of losing these effectively managed and effectively protected spaces is an example of habitat loss again.

There's no simple yes or no answer in terms of what's happening, or what could be done and what is being done, in terms of halting the transfer or putting a pause on the transfer of these lands. We understand the environment minister's office is aware of the issue and discussions with Minister MacAulay's office are under way, but of course it is an urgent matter that we hope is addressed soon.

The transfers are taking place in three phases, with two additional sets of transfers remaining. One set of the former pastures has already been transferred. The end date is March 2018, and up to 57 of the former PFRA sites have already been transferred, 34 in Saskatchewan alone. The next set of transfers will take place in March 2017, with the final set in March 2018.

The final transfer, and this is the point we'd like to underscore, will include the most intact and ecologically valuable of all the lands. That leaves relatively little time to prevent the loss of some of Canada's best remaining grassland landscapes, so this is certainly concerning to us.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

There is still time, then. I understand both the agricultural industry and conservationists are interested in keeping these lands.

[Eleanor Fast]

Yes. Nature Canada is part of a coalition of people who are concerned about this transfer, which includes not just Nature Canada, Nature Saskatchewan, and the nature groups, but also ranchers and the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is part of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. It's not an issue that is only of concern to environmental groups. It's of great concern to ranchers and other people who use the land as well.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I have a question for both of you, and I'll start with Nature Canada.

We've heard from a number of stakeholders that federal government leadership is needed if we're going to reach these conservation targets. Especially under such tight timelines, what kind of consultation is needed to meet Canada's conservation targets? What measurements can government put in place to ensure that stakeholders—and there are many of you that we're having the pleasure of meeting with—are working together to meet these goals?

Nature Canada first, and then Ducks Unlimited, please.

[Alex MacDonald]

Just very quickly, one of the opportunities for federal leadership on that particular matter, on target 11 and ensuring that we reach the target in time, would be leading on other effective area-based conservation measures. We have made in Canada a study, which is valuable to the world protected-areas community, from the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. It would provide a decision-screening tool that would allow multiple jurisdictions to walk through the process of identifying whether lands that were not formerly protected could count toward our Aichi targets. That's certainly an opportunity for federal leadership to push the needle, so to speak.

I'll pass it over now.

[James Brennan]

Thank you.

As I said in our remarks, we believe the opportunity is to capture the privately conserved lands and include them in the national tracking, or in the national database. If all the privately conserved lands were included, it would add at least another 1% to the grand scheme of things, so it would move the ball down the proverbial field fairly quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Aldag.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Fast, you made a comment, if I heard you correctly, about liking to see a more substantial vision for what Canada could be, or something to that effect. What I'm wondering—and I'll get Ducks Unlimited's comments, but I'll start with Nature Canada first—is that in your strategy you talked about finishing off systems areas that we have as we work toward the 17% target. Once we achieve that, and finish the systems plans if we aren't at the 17%, what would you see that could help us implement a more substantial vision for what Canada could be?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we have heard from other groups—and I've done some reading—that targets are one thing, but it's the question of the integrity of the biodiversity. What is it that you at Nature Canada would be looking for in that next phase of protection of areas?

[Eleanor Fast]

We don't have an exact figure to give you in terms of the percentage of Canada that we think should be protected. What is crucial is ecosystem integrity, landscape-level protection, along with the network and the integration of various types of protected areas. National parks are the jewel in the crown of Canada's protected areas. That type of protection, however, isn't necessarily right for everything. That's why both Nature Canada and Ducks Unlimited today highlighted the importance of national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries as an essential part of ecological protection, as well as indigenous protected lands and so on.

I don't have a number for you, but what's needed is that landscape-level protection of the ecosystem.

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

What I'm hearing is a shift from a hard percentage target to a commitment to increase the system, looking at the richness and interconnectedness of what's being protected.

[Alex MacDonald]

Within the protected areas community we are often reminded that the 17% and 10% targets, although laudable, were determined as part of an international negotiation and aren't necessarily science-based targets for Canada. We've heard of initiatives like “Nature Needs Half” and that much higher levels of protection would be needed to conserve biodiversity effectively.

Percentages are an important goalpost, or milestone, but we can certainly surpass those standards. There are studies at the global level showing that even reaching 17% and 10% will not effectively conserve all the global biodiversity at risk.

[Eleanor Fast]

The IUCN and BirdLife International, as well as other partners, have been working together to develop something called “key biodiversity areas”, or KBAs, which already exist in some ways in terms of the IBAs, or “important biodiversity areas”. This new KBA standard, though, will encompass all biodiversity, and that will be a great starting point towards ensuring that Canada's precious biodiversity will be covered by a protected areas network.

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

I think everybody sees some opportunities for the expansion of migratory bird sanctuaries and the wildlife conservation areas. It didn't appear that there was a plan in place, but it seems that both your organizations have done work. Have you shared this with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, and other organizations? How can you help guide the federal government in determining priority areas through the work you have done?

[Mark Gloutney]

We at Ducks Unlimited have talked to them about the national wildlife areas that exist where those critical pieces you could pick up are complementary. We've been working closely with their staff on some key properties that are coming onto the market, have come off the market, or are coming back on. We've been talking to them about some of the key places where we can expand that network.

[Eleanor Fast]

To be frank, it's an issue of money, in many ways, as both Nature Canada and my colleagues at Ducks Unlimited noted in our remarks. The Green Budget Coalition recommended $10 million in this budget and $30 million in subsequent years for national wildlife areas, yet there was no money in the budget. It's difficult for the Canadian Wildlife Service to implement a plan if they're not receiving any money. Part of the investment in protected areas should be for this network.

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

Given where we're at in meeting the targets, frank conversation is welcome. I appreciate your sharing those facts and figures with us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

We're going into our second round. It's obviously not going to be a full round, so if you could share your questions with each other, that would be great.

Next is Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question would be to Nature Canada. If I understood correctly, the national wildlife areas are easier to facilitate and to acquire than the national parks. Could you expand a little bit more on what you see as the pros and cons of that approach?

[Alex MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen. That's an excellent question and one—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you. I only ask excellent questions.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Alex MacDonald]

With respect to the steps through which these national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries are designated, or proposed and designated, versus national parks, one of the important yet significant hurdles with respect to national parks, of course, is mineral and energy resource assessments, which are very key.

With national wildlife areas, it's a much less arduous process to determine stakeholder conflicts, but most importantly, the management regime that's permitted for national wildlife areas under the Canada Wildlife Act and the wildlife area regulations is more flexible than that of national parks. We've made reference, and I'm sure other witnesses have made reference, to the idea of national parks and national marine conservation areas as the crown jewels in our protected areas.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What's the disadvantage?

[Alex MacDonald]

The disadvantage of national wildlife areas is that there can be less strict protections in some cases. One disadvantage I alluded to earlier was the mineral and energy resource assessment. There's no automatic subsurface protection.