ENVI Committee Report

SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON HABITAT CONSERVATION IN CANADA

The New Democrat members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development would first like to thank all witnesses who appeared during this study for their testimony. 

While we support the findings of the report in a general sense, we feel there are a number of important issues to add to the discussion. 

To preserve and enhance Canada’s biodiversity will require a forward-thinking approach, which is why New Democrats support the creation of a National Conservation Plan that includes the completion of the National Parks network. Part of this forward-thinking approach includes the greater use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in all regions, something that is missing from the current federal environmental assessment regime.  Enhanced SEA will help guide decision-making regarding resource development and improve the analysis of cumulative impacts on ecosystems, while incorporating important socio-economic considerations. SEA informs habitat conservation planning, by identifying and predicting strains on ecological integrity.

There is no greater threat to our ecosystems or barrier to habitat conservation than climate change. There was significant consensus from witnesses on the need to address climate change issues in order to protect our biodiversity, but also to design strategies for habitat conservation and the preservation of biodiversity in the context of a changing climate.[1] One witness suggested that the committee do a study on the effect of climate change on biodiversity,[2] an idea that the NDP supports as part of the development of a National Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy.

During the study the committee heard compelling testimony from First Nations representatives. This testimony surveyed the ways in which traditional knowledge can be used in habitat conservation, in particular with respect to the preservation of overall ecological integrity and the recognition of habitat conservation as different from species conservation.[3]

New Democrats support the provisions respecting indigenous peoples and their communities within the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. New Democrats believe that incorporating traditional knowledge into conservation practices requires robust consultation with First Nations at the project assessment level, but also in the development of environmental legislation and the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. Any National Conservation Plan must respect aboriginal and treaty rights and must be developed within the framework of enhanced nation to nation dialogue.

New Democrats do not support recommendation 3 of the report, which recommends modifying the definition of protected land adopted at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.  In the new interpretation, the Canadian government is modifying the rules of the game to their advantage by accepting that the prospecting, exploration and extraction of subterranean resources are an integral part of the conceptualisation of protected land. 

New Democrats oppose the attempt to enlarge of the definition that would improve the Canadian position, despite the flawed foundation of this definition and the discrepancies in comparison to other signatory countries.  In brief, we perceive these changes as a way to manipulate the real targets of Aichi.

Finally, the role of parliamentarians is to ensure the transparency and accountability of government spending. To that end, we raise a concern we have with the handing over of federal responsibility for conservation, as well as significant funds, to private conservation organizations.

Currently, parliamentarians are not able to adequately monitor how these funds are used by these private organizations, nor is there sufficient means to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives.

This is not to denigrate the work being done by private conservation organizations – quite the contrary - it is simply a recommendation that tax-payer money be spent as transparently as possible. Further, this funding cannot replace the important role of the federal government in conservation.

In addition, cuts to funding for departments which have a critical role in ensuring habitat protection and restoration have resulted in the systematic dismantling of Canada’s science capacity.  Without robust scientific research and monitoring, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess the status of natural ecosystems or to evaluate whether or not conservation programs are producing results.

A truly National Conservation Plan would recognize the interdependence of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and would incorporate strengthened legislative measures to ensure adequate protection for both.  Recent changes to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have left gaping holes in ecosystem and habitat protection in Canada, and must be reversed immediately, and the legislation strengthened as soon as possible.