:
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. We would be happy to answer your questions.
:
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.
:
It is absolutely important to understand those results. In that particular audit we were quite complimentary of Environment Canada.
I don't think it's an either/or. I think the plans and the clarity of targets are equally important. So I don't think it's an either/or.
Maybe I could respond to both of those questions by giving the example that I was going to say earlier. I don't believe the lack of a definition is making it difficult to achieve targets or leaving us in a situation where targets are just picked out of thin air.
The national parks have a fire cycle. They're trying to re-establish the natural cycle of fire and regeneration. Of course, we've worked quite actively as a society to suppress fire for a long time. That has left ecosystems in a situation where they are no longer functioning as they once did.
There were questions about Parks Canada and their targets, whether they are realistic, grounded in something. The panel in 2000 recommended that the historical fire cycle be re-established. They suggested 50%. Parks Canada reduced that target and aimed for 20%. We found that only a quarter of the parks are actually achieving that reduced target.
I cite that example because, if you talk to the fire experts in national parks, they fully agree, as I do, with the member's point. It's hard to know what we're aiming for in relation to natural cycles and biodiversity. They'll talk about the fact that even though they have tree rings of historical fire cycles, they don't know if first nations have affected those earlier fires or whether that was the natural way. So they don't know what they're trying to restore it to.
My point is that in that case, as in many other cases, we are far away from re-establishing the level of natural functioning of ecosystems. At some point, this will become important. But I don't think we're there yet.
We're pleased to be here today to speak to the committee on the programs raised in the commissioner's report.
I'm joined by my colleague, Bob McLean, who's the executive director of the Canadian Wildlife Service, and I also have another colleague, Tony Young, who's the director general of the sustainability directorate at Environment Canada.
[Translation]
We would first like to acknowledge the cooperation and engagement of the many professionals in the commissioner's office who conducted the audits. The department appreciates their work a great deal.
Several chapters of the Commissioner's report focus on Environment Canada's work related to biodiversity. The Commissioner made a number of findings and recommendations related to species at risk, migratory birds and protected areas programs. The department acknowledges those findings, partially agrees with one and fully agrees with all the other recommendations and has developed an action plan to implement the recommendations. The department is already implementing those recommendations.
It is important to note the shared responsibility in Canada for conservation and biodiversity. Indeed, the federal government is accountable for migratory birds, aquatic species, federal protected areas and other biodiversity-related responsibilities. For their part, provinces and territories manage other species, their own protected areas, renewable and non-renewable resource development and, together with municipalities, land-use planning. These activities all have an impact on biodiversity and ecosystems in Canada.
[English]
In addition to government responsibilities, stakeholders and Canadians more generally have a role in conservation. Aboriginal communities, industry, conservation organizations, landowners and managers, and resource leaseholders are important partners, given that they make decisions and take actions related to land and resource use and management, decisions and actions that can and do affect biodiversity.
Environment Canada takes its leadership role on biodiversity seriously. In fulfilling this work, we work with other departments, other levels of government, and stakeholders. This partnership approach influences both the nature and the pace of our work.
Our active engagement with partners and stakeholders is an important factor in a number of the commissioner's findings. Often it's engagement, the need to consult and cooperate with Canadians, that determines how quickly key documents, such as species at risk recovery documents or protected area management plans, can be finalized.
[Translation]
As part of its national leadership role for biodiversity, including for the convention on biological diversity, Environment Canada is working with other departments, provinces, territories and others to finalize Canada's proposed 2020 biodiversity goals and targets and to identify key actions and initiatives to achieve the targets. Environment Canada is also developing and applying models that help to put a value on ecosystem services, the benefits that nature provides, in order to support decision-making, and working with partners to enhance our approach.
As overall federal lead for the Species at Risk Act, Environment Canada administers many aspects of the legislation and coordinates national implementation. The act's requirements for consultation and cooperation are extensive. We ensure meaningful consultation so that the documents benefit from the best available knowledge and are well supported. Environment Canada is making progress on recovery documents for the significant number of listed species for which we are responsible, and it is our intention, as recommended by the Commissioner, to post on the registry more details with respect to our plans for recovery planning.
When the act entered into force in 2003, 233 species were listed under it as at risk. By 2005, when the first recovery documents became due, this number had grown to 345 species, creating a significant workload that contributes to the number of recovery documents that are currently overdue.
Today, there are final or proposed recovery documents for 293 species. Documents are overdue for 196 species. Of all the recovery documents Environment Canada has posted on the act's public registry, more than half been posted in the last three years. This includes recovery documents for significant species such as the boreal caribou, which was the product of extensive comments—over 19,000 received.
And we are taking action to protect species at risk such as the September 17 announcement by Minister Aglukkaq of the government's intention to issue an emergency protection order for sage-grouse in the coming months. We will complement that order with stewardship actions and by working cooperatively with private landowners.
[English]
While recovery documents for listed species are under development, actions to support their survival and recovery are often already under way. Projects related to these species are eligible for funding from our habitat stewardship program, which since 2000 has invested $127 million in over 2,100 on-the-ground conservation projects.
This investment has helped to legally protect almost 174,000 hectares of species at risk habitat in Canada. Many species that do not yet have a recovery document benefit from funding under this program. This allows us to take on-the-ground action to help protect species even before a final recovery strategy is posted.
The department continues to align the priorities for species at risk funding programs with key actions identified in recovery documents. Environment Canada has developed and is improving tools in order to better assess whether funded activities have contributed effectively to recovery priorities.
The has the responsibility for migratory birds under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Habitat monitoring and information form an important component of the conservation of migratory birds. Environment Canada works with our partners across Canada and internationally to assess and monitor migratory bird populations and implement conservation programs.
Of note, and as was discussed in the previous session, the North American waterfowl management plan, coordinated in Canada by Environment Canada, is widely supported as an effective partnership-based model for conservation. By the spring of next year, all bird conservation region strategies will be final and publicly available. Nine are already online.
These strategies will provide guidance to industry on conservation priorities and recommended conservation actions for migratory birds, and will enable industry to develop their own best management practices. Indeed, two industry sectors have already developed drafts of such documents.
Another way in which we support biodiversity is by conserving habitat directly through our own networks of protected areas. Environment Canada is responsible for 54 national wildlife areas and 92 migratory bird sanctuaries. We are in the process of updating management plans for all the national wildlife areas. We expect this work to be completed by 2017. In addition, once plans are completed for all the wildlife areas, we will complete management plans for migratory bird sanctuaries that are located on federal land or for which we have primary responsibility.
I should note that in Nunavut, cooperatively with Inuit communities, we're in the process of setting up the last of nine area co-management committees, which will help to complete management plans for our protected areas there.
[Translation]
As you may know, Canada's second federal sustainable development strategy was tabled in Parliament on Monday, November 4. This new strategy further advances the government's objectives of making environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable through long-term goals, medium-term targets, and concrete actions in areas of importance to the government and to Canadians.
By providing a whole-of-government review of federal actions to achieve environmental sustainability; linking sustainable development with core federal planning and reporting processes; and providing effective measurement, monitoring and reporting systems, Canadians have the information they need to track the government's environmental progress.
Stakeholder input on the consultation draft of the strategy, including recommendations from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, has played an important role in shaping the strategy. The final strategy very explicitly addresses the input that we received.
[English]
Many of the commissioner's specific recommendations related to the draft strategy have been addressed in the final version. I'll give you just a couple of examples. The final strategy makes targets in a number of cases more specific, measurable, and time-bound where possible, which will be reflected in improved clarity and measurability when it comes to reporting; includes greater detail in the government's approach to incorporating social and economic dimensions of environmental sustainability; recognizes the contributions of more federal departments and agencies; and includes a wider range of targets—all recommendations of the commissioner.
Mr. Chair, that ends my opening remarks. I'll turn it back over to you.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today about the 2013 fall report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and specifically the chapter on ecological integrity in Canada's national parks.
[English]
I'd like to thank the Office of the Auditor General, especially Neil Maxwell and Andrew Ferguson and their team, for the report and their recommendations that will allow us to continue to improve the management of our national parks.
In beginning, I would state the following:
The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
The spirit of these words, often referred to as the dedication clause of the Canada National Parks Act, has remained unchanged since they were first written in 1930.
Unaltered, they are enshrined in legislation and have guided Parks Canada for almost a century because they stand the test of time.
[Translation]
That is our mandate. That whole complete sentence. The mandate that Parks Canada delivers is an integrated mandate with three core elements that must work together. Protecting ecosystems, engaging Canadians, and encouraging them to connect personally to our natural treasures all contribute to maintaining or restoring ecological integrity.
[English]
In fact, our ecological integrity work is designed not only to ensure that traditional knowledge and our best science support sound decision-making, but also to inspire Canadians and to contribute to their visitor experience.
I make these remarks to set the stage for the findings and recommendations made by the audit, as well as our responses.
Let me jump to the chase. The commissioner concludes that “Parks Canada is fulfilling its key responsibilities for maintaining or restoring ecological integrity in Canada's national parks” and has “developed a solid framework of policies, directives, and guidelines for fulfilling the Agency's key responsibilities”. These are statements of which we are understandably proud.
To understand this statement, one must understand the four key foundational elements of an ecological integrity program. Of this, the commissioner is in agreement with the need to have a solid understanding of the condition of park ecosystems; the need to identify and communicate ecological priorities for each park; the need to take restoration actions that result in tangible, measurable conservation gains; and the need to ensure that there are no significant environmental impacts of planned activities in national parks.
Not surprisingly, it is within these four elements that the legislative obligations of the agency lie.
With respect to the requirement to report on the state of parks, Parks Canada regularly tables in Parliament a report on the state of protected heritage areas that assesses the priority ecosystems in national parks.
In accordance with our legislation and in response to the recommendation from the commissioner in 2005, Parks Canada undertook an unprecedented effort to complete 93% of the required national park management plans by 2010. In the plans that this audit reviewed, they were found to “contain the required elements” and “include management objectives that specified how ecological integrity would be maintained or restored”.
As part of the obligation to maintain or restore ecological integrity, the commissioner indicated that the "Agency had carried out significant work in every area examined". In particular, the agency has undertaken the most intensive ecological restoration effort in its history.
With respect to the obligations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the commissioner stated that "Parks Canada routinely considered the impacts of ecological integrity when approving and implementing visitor activities and capital development projects". In his audit, the commissioner highlighted the fact that "Parks Canada is recognized as a world leader in developing guidance on ecological integrity". Still, the audit leaves the impression that Parks Canada is struggling to protect Canada's park ecosystems and that we are at risk of falling further behind.
I have worked in Parks Canada for 34 years, in national parks from Newfoundland to the Northwest Territories, in the field of resource conservation. I can tell you that what we are doing now in managing for ecological integrity could not even have been imagined in 1980 or even in the late 1990s.
Consider the following. We are scientifically assessing the condition of 102 key park ecosystems. We are the only country in the G8 that is reporting on the state of ecological integrity in our national park system. We are leading the world in restoration science and putting it into practice at a scale never before seen in the agency's 100-year history. We have ecologists as well as dedicated science and technical positions at every park, supported by a national team of senior scientists. We are actively using fire to achieve ecological gains while protecting the public and have managed fires that would cover an area twice the size of Prince Edward Island. In addition to science, Parks Canada is recognized internationally as a leader in building respectful, trusting relationships with aboriginal people that includes the active use of traditional knowledge in ecological decision-making.
I would not characterize this as struggling. I would characterize this as international leadership.
We recognize that there is always more work to do. Parks Canada fully intends to build on its proud history as the world's first national parks agency and continue to meet our conservation priorities, as informed by the report's findings and its recommendations.
As we move forward with our conservation priorities across the country, visitors are interacting with scientists, aboriginal people are sharing their wisdom, and new media are linking young people to our national parks. Some of these great examples are showcased in the third volume of our action-on-the-ground program, which you received earlier. I think you all have a copy. This provides a synopsis of some of the work we have done over the last number of years.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here with us today for this important discussion.
I want to follow up with the parks assessment as well. I felt the commissioner's report leaned a little bit on the negative side and failed to acknowledge a lot of accomplishments that Parks Canada has made.
I'm glad to see in your report that you highlighted some of the positive comments that he made, including that “The Agency had carried out significant work in every area examined” and that the “Agency has undertaken the most intensive ecological restoration effort in its history.”
I think that in recognizing you're dealing with a huge expansion in national park terrain, there are capacity issues that have to be addressed.
I'm also highlighting your points here about scientifically assessing the condition of 102 ecosystems; that we're the only country in the G-8 that actually reports on the ecological integrity of our parks system; and that we are leading the world in restoration science and putting it into practice.
I just want to comment on that because I feel, as I said, the report was perhaps unnecessarily negative. Of course, there is a lot more that could be done. There is a gap in knowledge because of the expansion.
On the west coast, I have one of our premier parks, the Pacific Rim National Park, and somewhere in your remarks I heard something about technological information and technology that you're using to help reach out to a new generation of Canadians. The new Kwisitis Interpretive Centre on Long Beach is amazing in the way it shows the traditional knowledge of aboriginal people. Some people felt that the anatomical display was a little too anatomically correct, but that was first-nations directed. Of course, we've made some modest modifications to that. But there are the dune restorations that have been going on in the park. I see tremendous work happening right on the ground that we were able to participate in.
I want to ask you to comment on the habitat stewardship program, the aboriginal fund for species at risk, and the over 3,000 projects in the past 14 years. Can you identify some of the accomplishments that are happening through these great investments?
There are several reasons why we're not meeting deadlines associated with the recovery strategies under species at risk, our management plans for our protected areas, or the bird conservation region strategies. I think the most common reason across those three program areas relates to the importance of collaboration and consultation and the cooperation requirements. For example, the Species at Risk Act requires us to cooperate within the federal government, with the other federal departments, with wildlife management boards, with aboriginal communities, and any other affected person. We're required to consult with any affected land owner or other affected person.
For Environment Canada, we have two-thirds of the species that require recovery documents. The bulk of those species for us—and it's a little bit unique compared to the other two—are focused on those non-federal lands. That increases the importance of the engagement, which can actually take a fair bit of time.
I wouldn't mind sharing an example that's exceptional, but I think it can illustrate to the committee why we have a challenge. We completed the boreal caribou recovery strategy and we had two rounds of consultations with aboriginal communities. We reached out to 271 aboriginal communities. We went and received comments from 161 of those communities. That took two years to do.
In the second round of consultation, there were not quite the same numbers: 265 aboriginal communities based on what we'd learned in the first go-round and 87 communities participated. We received 42 aboriginal traditional knowledge summary reports.
We also conducted our own science. We have about 600 pages of scientific assessment to complete that recovery strategy. We have nearly 1,000 pages of aboriginal traditional knowledge. That took $3.5 million and as I say about three and a half years to complete. So we have a legal duty to consult compared to the two-year limit provided in SARA for the completion of a recovery strategy for that species.