[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
.1540 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue our work this afternoon. We will start our second session by hearing the second panel, made up of Mr. Steve Wendt, chief of the Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Environment Canada; Mr. Philip Smith, director of the National Accounts and Environment Division, Statistics Canada; and Mr. Fern Filion, chief of the Socio-Economics Division, Environment Canada. Welcome all of you.
[English]
I can assure you that the panel that preceded you this morning laid the foundation for a broad investigation of the subject before us today. It is the subject of wildlife and its manifold facets in the broadest possible fashion, if you like. Therefore, you are entering a nicely warmed-up atmosphere. We are ready to run with you and explore the subject further.
Before launching you, I would indicate two items for my colleagues. Over the lunch hour the clerk has explored the possibility of turning this forum into an educational videotape, which would run for half an hour or 35 minutes, in the form of a summary of the hearings between now and the completion of our work on Thursday. This would be done during the summer, within available resources and within available budget.
Do I have your blessing that this be done along these lines?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: With that understanding, I will make the second announcement, which is less joyful but nevertheless necessary. I wish to remind you that in our respective offices there is a notice about next week's hearing on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are resuming our drafting sessions and the notice for next week reads roughly as follows: Tuesday morning, afternoon and evening; Wednesday morning, afternoon and evening; and Thursday morning, afternoon and possibly, if necessary, evening.
I hope you can have a restful weekend and come back to Ottawa in very good shape, because next week will be a heavy-duty writing week.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): I do not know if this is a good time, but since you are talking about the report writing, I would like to raise two minor issues.
First of all, I want to talk about the new review of CEPA. The Committee is starting to write its report. On several issues, I agree with my Liberal colleagues, however, when we read the viewpoints of the Committee, we realize that almost all the quotes come from the Liberal members. I would appreciate it if we could be more open-minded here. There is no comment from the Bloc and only one from the Reform Party. I believe my Reform colleague would also object to this. That was the first point I wanted to make.
The second one is about the hundreds of copies of the report mailed to our riding offices. The report is well done - I sit on the Committee - but I think there is a bit of waste.
We should set the example. I do not know if the Liberals would agree with me, but I suggest that the members order the number of copies they require, whether it is 5, 10 or 20, instead of getting 100 copies through the mail, which must be quite expensive for the government. Anyway, all those copies end up on a shelf somewhere in our offices.
.1545
The Chairman: Your comments are welcome. If there is no objection, your message will be conveyed tomorrow to the writers so that they are aware of what you have suggested. Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Wendt, you may go ahead and lead your group into the presentation, which will be followed by the question period.
Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Steve Wendt (Chief, Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development about the status of wildlife in Canada.
This morning we talked about some global issues too, so if during questions you want to try me on the status of wildlife in the world....
The topic just for Canada, though, is a large one and I will not be able to cover it completely.
I will begin by making some general observations about change, in wildlife populations and in our ability to understand and react. I will explain some difficulties in the study of wildlife. Habitat is the key to the success of wildlife, so I'll make some comments in that area. Then I will try to give a picture, however incomplete, of the status of several important categories of wildlife.
The definition I use for wildlife is from Canada's national wildlife policy. It includes all wild living things, such as the lichen on the screen.
The mix of species in Canada's wildlife is constantly shifting. Some species are well adapted to the human landscape. Many of these are prospering; for example, birds that come to bird feeders very much shift their ranges depending on the availability of food from people.
Mourning doves have expanded into regions of the prairies using shelterbelts established by people. Deer benefit when forestry and other activities open wooded habitat.
Snow geese have become abundant, profiting from the combination of feeding opportunities in agricultural fields, some years of the mild arctic climate, and wildlife refuges in the United States wintering areas.
In many cases it is non-native species, those that have travelled with people around the globe, that have done well by us. Agricultural landscapes in Canada now harbour over 500 introduced weed species. Some of them are attractive, such as chicory.
Many species are sensitive to human changes. Predatory birds such as raptors, shrikes and owls can face toxic chemicals concentrated through their food chains. Some species have narrow requirements for habitat, such as the marbled murrelet, which nests in coastal old-growth forest. The southern flying squirrel needs larger patches of forest and has declined where its habitat has been reduced to smaller and smaller fragments. Grizzly bears cannot persist close to extensive human habitation.
Overall, Canadians' personal contact with wildlife is being degraded. Even if there are healthy populations of birds and mammals in remote areas, the natural diversity of wildlife declines near human settlement. What we see near our homes are shrinking habitat diversity and more introduced species. We lose access to wildlife.
Although in recent years we might not have been doing much more to gather field data on wildlife status, our capacity to understand trends in wildlife habitat is increasing. Many government agencies are using new, automated information systems to integrate and display wildlife and wildlife habitat information. These new tools allow major progress in conservation.
Despite technical advances in monitoring habitat, it is important to remember that trends in habitat alone do not tell the story. A migratory species may be responding to environmental pressures in distant habitats it needs at other times of the year. Our assessment of the habitat requirements of wildlife is inexact. There are many examples of habitat that looks good to the human investigator but the species is not found there. Even if the habitat is good, the wildlife has to get there from somewhere else. The history of the area, the mobility of the species, its rarity, and a large measure of luck go into determining whether a species will occur where we think it should.
.1550
One of the great steps forward in recent years has been an increased capacity for cooperative work on wildlife conservation. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan pioneered a joint venture approach to conservation in the agricultural landscape. The National Forest Strategy has set the stage for unprecedented cooperation among industry, government and interest groups in the forested landscape.
The story of the contamination in the Great Lakes illustrates the value of an ecosystem approach. Almost all contaminants there have decreased since the 1970s. Federal and provincial wildlife agencies are defining better ways to work together and with others.
Globally there is concern about the loss of biological diversity. Some have compared the present rate of species loss with the end of the dinosaur era.
The trend of species disappearance is slower in Canada than in many countries. One reason is related to our recent history of glaciation. Only about 10,000 years ago most of this country was covered by ice. That means we have fewer species of wildlife than tropical areas and the species we have are quite resilient. Still, as a major consuming nation, we must be conscious of the pressure we put on the world's ecosystems.
It is not easy to track the status of wildlife populations. Wildlife is elusive. Most wildlife would rather not be seen by people at all, much less figure as examples in a state of environment report. Difficulties arise because of remoteness. Wildlife is wary. Many species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians fit into this category. Some species are very small, such as insects and other invertebrates, and so escape our attention.
Many small forms of Canada's wildlife have never been identified. Much of wildlife habitat is inaccessible, on lake bottoms, or in tall trees, where the marbled murrelet nests. If a species is rare, as are so many plants and other organisms, it will be hard to find.
The ways we learn about wildlife populations must often be tailored to the individual kinds. Songbirds, for example, are not too wary of people provided we do not get too close. In the spring, male songbirds advertise their territory by singing so their populations are monitored by volunteers in the breeding bird survey, who learn to identify each species by its song. Some amphibians are also counted when they call, also by volunteers. Some mammals can be studied by their tracks or, in the case of grouse surveys, by the traces they leave behind when feeding.
A powerful indirect tool is capture-recapture, in which some animals are caught, marked and released. This is used in bird banding and fish tagging. Direct counting and aerial surveys work for some species, such as ducks and moose.
Many wildlife studies are work intensive and, as I mentioned, volunteer naturalists contribute in many ways.
Wildlife status is not just the number of individuals. Disease from sources such as toxic contamination is an important part of the picture. Wildlife disease is deceptive. Sick animals generally hide and so are not reported. Scavengers soon clean up any remains. When a sick or dead animal is found, diagnosis is uncertain. Often the sample is in poor condition. Often there are multiple causes of disease. Our knowledge of wildlife disease is low relative to that for humans or domestic animals.
The diagnostic costs can be prohibitive. Just as for people, it can be hard to distinguish healthy animals from sick ones when the effects of contamination are sub-lethal. For example, methylmercury concentration in fish predators can reach levels high enough to reduce reproductive potential without causing external signs of illness.
A trend in the size of a population does not in itself justify concern. Many wild populations fluctuate naturally and it is not necessary to track and react to all such changes. It is only when the trend is long term, and especially when it is related to a factor we can do something about, that it becomes critical.
Not so long ago the Canadian scene was completely different from what it is now. The prairies harboured immense herds of bison, with attendant wolves and grizzly bears. Cougar and elk were much more widespread. Passenger pigeons and Eskimo curlews filled the skies in migration. Both species are now extinct. Well, the Eskimo curlew we hope is not extinct, but the passenger pigeon is. That heyday of wildlife is now unattainable.
.1555
But what is happening to wildlife habitat in today's Canada? One approach to wildlife habitat is protection, setting aside special areas where the impact of activity on wildlife is minimized. The area of Canada protected is approaching 10% in the IUCN categories I through V. This protection is not uniform among Canada's ecosystems. For example, mountainous areas are largely protected while much of the north is not.
Outside the protected areas wildlife habitat interacts directly with the human economy. Clearly that is good for some species but not so good for others. The map on the screen shows areas that are assessed as presently being of highest risk to biodiversity, and we can see that the southern, more inhabited, areas of the country predominate.
It is not possible to give a comprehensive overview of Canadian habitat in this presentation, but I will mention a few examples from selected zones.
British Columbia has the most diverse range of habitats in Canada. Grizzly bears and cougars are still found there. There are many areas of special habitat that have needed attention, such as old-growth coastal habitats. The south Okanagan, among the regions in Canada, is the second in terms of species at risk. Some of the network of salmon spawning streams are threatened by problems such as alien species. A new forest practices code in British Columbia should help. It is a sign of new cooperation among government, industry and other groups that should bode well for wildlife habitat there.
The boreal forest zone occurs in most provinces and territories. It includes such species as timber wolves and black bears, both of which are stable or increasing. The most important human interaction with habitat in the boreal forest is probably logging, although other large projects such as hydroelectric development are significant. The diversity of species in the boreal forest is low, although there are some centres of rare plants. As a whole, the risk to wildlife there is low at present, although we need a better understanding of the impacts of large developments and major new forestry projects.
Prairies and aspen parkland: Unlike the east, where development occurred generations ago, we have retained a memory of the pristine situation of the prairies with its bison and plains wolves. That extensive natural prairie system is gone. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the habitat has been transformed, mostly by agriculture. Seventy percent of prairie wetlands have been lost. Recently, several species have declined, including birds that are associated with prairie wetlands and grasslands.
The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence comprise Canada's economic centre, and wildlife habitat has been put under great pressure. About one-half of the threatened and endangered species from Canada are here. Also, this area has a high level of non-native species. In some parts of this zone, conservation centres on protection of remnants of disappearing ecosystems. Elsewhere, the challenge is to manage a mixed landscape of agriculture and woods for the modern assemblage of species that occur there.
For many wildlife questions it is not enough to look at Canada on its own. A North American perspective is needed. The map on the screen shows North America, and there are several major eco-zones that are continuous among Canada, the United States, and even into Mexico. Through their migrations, most of Canada's birds, as well as other migratory species, rely on habitats in the U.S., Mexico, and elsewhere. Birds coming from western Canada largely winter in the U.S. and Mexico. Birds coming from eastern Canada use that corridor for migration, but some go farther, into other parts of Latin America. We share ecosystems that cross country boundaries, and we also share species and ecosystems with countries around the Arctic, which don't show on this chart.
Now I'm going to address some of the major trends in different groups of wildlife. The first is invertebrates. Little is known about trends in the invertebrates. Some obvious species, such as butterflies, get attention. The monarch butterfly, for example, depends on a small area of habitat in Mexico where it winters, and some monitoring takes place there. We know that unusually hard winters kill many individual monarchs, and we know that local forestry operations are slowly closing in on the critical habitat, but overall the Canadian population may be stable.
.1600
Invertebrates that are also pests are studied, and many show massive changes in population from one year to the next. Such population swings may be characteristic of many invertebrates. The zebra mussel shows how a prolific introduced invertebrate species can explode into new areas.
Perhaps only half the Canadian invertebrate species have been described. The Biological Survey of Canada is studying invertebrates in major Canadian biomes.
To a large extent plants characterize habitats. This screen shows cardinal-flowers, a native species that in some areas is threatened by an introduced species, purple loosestrife. We have good information on the status of commercial plant species such as trees, but almost no trend information for other species. Many familiar plant species are common and their status does not in itself imply a conservation concern except when it is linked to the status of ecosystems. Many species of plants are not common, however. Studies of rare vascular plants have been prepared under the leadership of the Canadian Museum of Nature for all the provinces and territories. This is an important step in the identification of unique wildlife communities. Plants are not mobile and are tied to the long-term history of a place, as well as its current potential.
Special places often have their special plants. An example is the Athabasca thrift, a threatened species whose world population is restricted to a small area of sand dunes south of Lake Athabasca in Saskatchewan. The map on the screen has green dots where endemic species of plants are found in Canada. An endemic species is a species that occurs only in our country. You can see a cluster in northern Saskatchewan where the Athabasca thrift is found, and several other species as well, because the area is not unique just for the Athabasca thrift but for the entire wildlife community found there. Common plants are not immune to problems. Plant diseases, especially those that involve introduced pathogens, can devastate huge populations, as happened with the American elm and the American chestnut.
Fish: The marine fisheries have been studied in more detail than I can give in this report. The story of some marine fish - for example, the Atlantic groundfish - is well known. In the picture there's an Atlantic plaice. It typifies the potential for exploitation to cut into the wild stocks of fish.
Freshwater fish populations are apparently mostly stable, but there are problems that coincide with proximity to human settlement: spawning grounds are damaged; dams change flow patterns; overfishing reduces certain species; and contamination occurs. Some species of fish are closely tied to certain bodies of water and they are vulnerable to what happens to those. This close link to habitat helps explain the relatively large number of fish species that have been listed as vulnerable, threatened, or endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Amphibians and reptiles, similarly, have relatively high proportions on those lists.
There is a widespread perception of a global decline in amphibian species - this is a common tree frog - but there is little solid data and its situation is not uniform. Various groups are just establishing monitoring programs in Canada. For example, volunteer surveys have been established to monitor amphibian species in Ontario and Quebec. It is clear that amphibians are sensitive species, sensitive to wetland loss, acid rain, ultraviolet radiation, introduced species and water contamination. One of the most common species is the leopard frog, but its populations apparently crashed in much of North America in the 1970s. The clouded salamander, found in B.C., is declining where forestry is leaving a clean forest floor instead of the decaying logs that make salamander habitat.
Amphibians include some of our most elusive species, and it may be several years before a clearer picture of their population trend will emerge.
Reptiles are mostly confined to southern parts of Canada. These are long-lived animals, usually with low annual productivity, and thus they are vulnerable. There are relic populations, small hold-outs in Canada from species that may have a larger distribution in the United States. Some reptiles have been needlessly persecuted. Thankfully, some are now protected by law, such as the endangered eastern massasauga rattlesnake. Common species can be vulnerable. In some areas snapping turtles have been heavily exploited for food, and species like the garter snake may rely on winter denning sites where thousands of individuals congregate.
.1605
Birds: Neotropical migrants are those species, mostly songbirds, that breed in Canada in the summer but migrate and spend much of the year in Latin America. Some of the great wildlife conservation questions centre around ecosystems these species inhabit, from Canadian forests and grasslands to tropical rainforests. Some workers have reported drastic declines in these species, mostly in the United States. However, it is difficult to separate the causes in the tropical wintering grounds from habitat degradation in northern breeding areas. Canadian analysis has shown that for birds that breed here, it is not possible to group all the neotropical migrants under a single trend. There are too many species with differing histories.
There are a number of declining species that winter in Latin America, including eastern Canadian populations of the barn swallow, the wood thrush, Wilson's warbler, and the scarlet tanager. At the same time some other long-distance migrants in the same area have increased, probably because of improvements in Canada in the use of forest pesticides. Short-distance migrants, those that winter in the United States, are declining more consistently than those that travel to the tropics.
Seabird populations in many cases exhibit slow population declines associated with increased human activity in the marine environment. Competition for food can be a factor, as can the chronic mortality from small oil spills and losses in fishing nets. On the Pacific coast, predators such as raccoons, which have been introduced to nesting islands, have been serious problems.
Many gull species, on the other hand, are thriving on superabundant food near human settlements. The large colony of ring-billed gulls on the river below Parliament Hill is an example. Unfortunately, gulls often succeed at the expense of other species, such as terns.
Many species of ducks have been through a decade of population decline but are now recovering. A combination of intensive farming practices and years of drought on the prairies had reduced species such as mallards and pintails to all-time lows. In eastern Canada black ducks declined. They were supplanted by the mallard, which seemed better suited to the human landscape. Now the declines have levelled off, and some improvements have occurred thanks to a return of better moisture conditions and habitat improvements through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Not much is known, however, about populations of seaducks, which need more attention.
Ducks are vulnerable to poisoning by lead shot from hunting. The Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial wildlife agencies have developed a regulatory plan to eliminate the major exposure to waterfowl by the year 2000. This may not be enough. There are additional problems from the use of lead in hunting and fishing that need attention. These include secondary poisoning of raptors and scavengers and the poisoning of loons by fishing sinkers. The Canadian Wildlife Service is examining the need to do more about problems of lead in wildlife.
Numbers of geese are mostly increasing. There are several explanations. Modern agriculture provides an abundant source of food for geese in the winter and the spring migration, often in ways that do not conflict with the farmer. Wildlife refuges, especially in the United States, have reduced the effect of hunting. There have been several years of good weather on arctic goose nesting grounds. As a result, some populations, such as that of the snow geese, are at unprecedented high levels.
This can create problems. Goose-agriculture conflicts increase and the geese can ruin their own habitat. In some cases, the arctic meadows they need for feeding can be stripped of vegetation. Also, when the snow geese multiply, other species, such as some arctic forms of Canada geese, may have to do without.
It is important to recognize that a species may be made up of many separate genetic stocks. While the southern populations of large Canada geese are increasing, several of the more northern populations of smaller Canada geese are declining. Those northern populations are the most important for aboriginal users.
Shorebirds breed over vast areas of Canada, many in arctic and sub-arctic habitat. Scattered populations and remoteness make the study of breeding shorebirds difficult. As a result, we are not very confident about the assessment of population status for many shorebird species; however, most seem to be either stable or decreasing. Four shorebird species are threatened, endangered or vulnerable. As a group, shorebirds are very sensitive to the disturbance of critical habitat, either the dunes where piping plovers nest or the tidal flats where huge congregations of shorebirds gather in migration.
.1610
A major step for the conservation of shorebirds was the recognition of their linked habitats in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.
Birds of prey are high on the food chain. They can get elevated concentrations of contaminants in their food. The story of how DDT decimated many raptor populations is well known. Perhaps the major trend we observe now is the recovery of species such as bald eagles and ospreys, which are no longer subject to those pesticides. Still, raptors are sensitive species. They are long-lived and often uncommon. There are twenty-one species and subspecies of diurnal raptors in Canada. Six of these are rated vulnerable, threatened, or endangered. Of the sixteen owls, six are so rated. This tempers the overall picture of stability and increase in many raptor populations.
We know more about the status of large mammals than small ones, although some small mammals are obviously abundantly successful. Fur-bearing mammals are mostly stable or increasing, but some populations of the wolverine and the pine marten are at risk. Marine species such as the polar bear are either stable or at least not threatened at this time, except for a number of whale and related species, such as the bowhead and right whales and some populations of beluga. Ungulates, which are deer and their relatives, are not in immediate danger except for the high arctic Peary caribou and some forms of woodland caribou. Some mammal species thrive around people. These include such familiar wildlife as groundhogs, raccoons, grey squirrels, and coyotes. As we develop a broad perspective of biological diversity, it is important to look beyond our close associates and the economically important mammals.
A recent atlas of mammals in Ontario was prepared by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. That was a welcome addition to the information about the whole range of mammal species in that province.
An important part of Canada's original wildlife and its habitat suffered with the development of southern areas. Such drastic changes do not seem imminent for the wildlife communities that remain. Through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, we have a picture of the status of the most prominent species of wildlife at greatest risk. This covers, however, only a small part of the diversity in Canada's nature. While for many species the current threat may be low, overall wildlife is slowly losing ground. Throughout the world the expansion of human population and industry reduces the options for nature.
Mr. Chairman, I've provided a list of additional readings. It was just too much for me to carry all at once, so I'll send those over later.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wendt. That is quite an overview you have given us. I'm sure there will be a considerable number of questions.
The next speaker is Mr. Smith.
Mr. Philip Smith (Director, National Accounts and Environment Division, Statistics Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Your invitation to address the committee today on behalf of Statistics Canada is very much appreciated. I welcome the opportunity to tell you about my agency's efforts in the area of environmental statistics and to contribute a statistician's perspective to your deliberations on the state of wildlife in Canada.
In my remarks today, which will be brief, I would like first to give you a quick outline of our environmental statistics program as a whole and then to offer a very short statistical sketch of recent trends pertaining to Canadian wildlife.
As the committee members may know, the basic mandate of Statistics Canada is to collect and disseminate timely statistical information about Canada's economic and social conditions. Our institution has existed for 77 years now. For most of that time we had no environmental statistics program as such. However, during the past few years we have very considerably stepped up our efforts in this area. We have conducted new surveys about the waste management industry, pollution abatement and control expenditures by business, the behaviour of households vis-à-vis the environment, the use of packaging materials, water use by industry, and Canadian attitudes about wildlife generally. We have compiled a wide variety of time series statistics about the environment drawn from the regulatory and administrative records of federal and provincial government departments, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada.
.1615
We have built up a geographical information system containing quinquennial data from the census, annual data from the survey of manufacturers, digital satellite data on land use, and a variety of information from other sources. This system is capable of answering questions about local environmental conditions.
We have developed a new set of environmental accounts recording the state of Canada's forests, subsoil minerals and other natural resource stocks through time, measuring the flow of pollutants from industry into the natural environment and linking natural resource use and pollution to conventional measures of economic activity.
Finally, we have published several volumes of statistical information pertaining to the environment, including Human Activity and the Environment - a publication I have brought here - a second publication called Environmental Perspectives, and a third one on databases for environmental analysis.
Environmental change cannot really be very well understood without considering the impact of human activity. The reverse is also true. However, our traditional measures of economic activity, such as the gross domestic product, do not take fully into account changes in the quality and quantity of environmental assets.
The abundance of natural resources in Canada is a very important, though often neglected, part of our national wealth. Indeed, the loss of biological resources worldwide is largely because societies have failed to appreciate the full value of environmental resources or to recognize ongoing depletion of and damage to them.
Taking stock of our natural resources on a regular basis, including wildlife, is crucial for sustainable development. This is an important, although relatively new, responsibility of Statistics Canada.
In the distant past man and wildlife shared the same basic living space, but in today's world wildlife and wilderness habitat are often regarded as separate and apart from humanity. Imaginary lines are drawn between human settlements in urban and rural agricultural areas and the untamed regions outside. But these dividing lines are quite artificial. Human economic activities have a variety of impacts on wildlife. Animals are exploited directly by fishermen, hunters and trappers; they are of course appreciated by nature lovers; and their habitat is transformed, often for the worse, by human land use, resource harvesting and pollution.
The abundance and diversity of wildlife is essential for human life on this planet, yet wildlife as such is largely insignificant economically. Wildlife products such as fish and furs directly account for less than 0.5% of our gross domestic product.
There are of course other indirect economic benefits from wildlife too, such as those linked to tourism and culture, but the specific contribution of wildlife in these instances is difficult to assess.
For a full understanding of wildlife we need input from social scientists as well as from biologists and other natural scientists. At Statistics Canada our expertise lies mostly in demography, sociology and economics, although we do have some natural scientists on staff as well. We tend to focus on the linkages between economic activity and the environment rather than on the natural life cycle processes of wildlife populations themselves.
Our quinquennial environmental statistics publication Human Activity and the Environment, which was published last in 1994, reports in broad terms on the interactions between the economy and the environment. Our annual publication, Environmental Perspectives, provides regular updates on our statistical work in this area.
Much of the data we have compiled on Canadian wildlife comes from the records of Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, although our economic and social surveys also provide some relevant information.
I want to offer the committee a short statistical overview of the status of wildlife in Canada. I will do so by addressing in turn five specific interrelated questions pertaining to Canadian fish and animal wildlife. The questions pertain to biodiversity, chemical contaminants in the natural environment, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing.
.1620
The first question I would like to address briefly is this: How serious is the human threat to biodiversity in Canada? In the 1991 publication The State of Canada's Environment, published by Environment Canada, over 125,000 species of plants and animals in the country were identified. It is not really known whether biodiversity in this numerical or counting sense is increasing or decreasing, but it is known that the gene pool is changing very quickly.
Initially the major threat to wildlife species was excessive hunting, but now it is the removal or destruction of their living space. The black-footed ferret and the greater prairie chicken, for example, were virtually wiped out as the spread of agriculture destroyed their native habitat. Of all human activities, agriculture has had the greatest impact on wildlife, by forest clearing, by the replacement of natural vegetation with crops, by the drainage of wetlands, and by the use of insecticides and herbicides.
More recently, the introduction of exotic species from distant parts of the globe, made possible by modern means of goods transportation, is also having an important impact on biodiversity.
In sum, the world's diverse stock of genetic material is mixing and changing more rapidly than ever before in ways that are poorly measured and even more poorly understood.
Tables 4.3.3 through 4.3.8 in our publication Human Activity and the Environment, which was excerpted from in the hand-out that I hope you received earlier, provides a detailed list of the mammal, plant, bird, fish, reptile and amphibian species that are presently in jeopardy.
The second important question I want to address briefly is this: To what extent is the problem of chemical contaminants in wildlife habitat becoming more grave in Canada? Here the visible trend is quite positive, I am pleased to say, although certainly not enough to remove all basis for concern.
Serious problems of wildlife contamination developed during the postwar period, particularly with regard to organochlorines such as DDT, PCBs and dioxins. But tough government regulations have turned the situation around quite considerably in the past two decades. Figures 4.3.1 through 4.3.7 in Human Activity and the Environment illustrate the improving trend.
Caution is warranted, though, since the available statistics on pollution flows into the environment are quite incomplete and there may well be other serious problems working beneath the surface as yet undetected.
My third question concerns wildlife habitats: Is it true that human land use is continuing to encroach ever more perilously on wildlife living space? The answer is definitely yes, although there are some signs the situation is starting to improve.
Unfortunately, Canada does not have good time series information on land use change. Statistics Canada is presently working to construct a comprehensive land database that should help remedy this deficiency in the future.
One important fact is that fully one-quarter of the world's wetlands, which are among the most vital of wildlife habitats, lie within Canada's borders. It is estimated that one-seventh of Canada's pre-settlement wetlands have already been converted to other uses during the past three centuries. Map 4.4.1 in Human Activity and the Environment shows the distribution of wetlands across the country today.
Canada has taken a number of actions over the years to protect specific areas for wildlife, and currently approximately 10% of the nation's total land area is subject to some degree of preservation. However, this protection is partial at best. The stresses from human activities on ecological balance and biodiversity are examined in two recent Statistics Canada studies of land use and environmental change, one focused on Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba and the other on Waterton Lakes National Park on the Alberta-British Columbia border. These two studies are reproduced in my hand-out.
.1625
My fourth question is about the commercial exploitation of animals: How significant is commercial hunting and trapping in Canada today?
The hunting and trapping industry of course was most important during Canada's early history. It experienced a relative decline over much of the last century. Changes in the demand for furs reflecting the evolution of public attitudes towards fur clothing both in Canada and abroad have caused the annual quantity and value of pelts harvested to decrease greatly. This is particularly evident for muskrat pelts, where harvesting dropped from over two million pelts valued at $14 million in the 1970s to about 200,000 pelts worth only about $500,000 in 1992.
There has also been a trend decline in the demand for beaver and bear pelts. In the 1992 hunting and trapping season, fewer than one million fur-bearing wild animals of all kinds were harvested in Canada, representing a value of approximately $23 million. Ranch-raised pelt production, chiefly of mink and fox, was also at about the same level.
The small commercial importance of trapping is highlighted by the fact that in 1994 only about 1,600 persons were employed in the industry, just one in every 10,000 Canadian jobs. Of course these statistics refer only to the commercial exploitation of mammals. Unfortunately, comparable data for recreational and subsistence hunting are unavailable.
My fifth and final question concerns aquatic wildlife: How important is fishing to the Canadian economy and what have been the recent trends in the fishing industry?
The basic answer to that is that fishing of course is quite important to the Canadian economy, although developments in the past few years have been altogether discouraging.
In 1992 fish harvesting generated $1.4 billion in gross revenue, 60 times the cash yielded by hunting and trapping of mammals. Lobster, salmon and cod together accounted for almost half of the total fishing revenues. While the lobster stock seem to be holding up quite well, those for cod and salmon have, as everyone knows, dropped sharply in the last few years. The Atlantic and Pacific salmon catches have suffered greatly from habitat loss, dam construction, acidification and water contamination from mining and pulp and paper production and agriculture.
A more positive trend has been the rapid growth of aquaculture, or the fish farming industry, which expanded from $7 million of revenues in 1984 to $258 million in 1991.
Sport fishing is also important to the Canadian economy, as illustrated by the fact that about five million sport fishing licences are issued each year.
Tables 4.14.1 through 4.14.18 in Human Activity and the Environment provide details.
In conclusion, although our collective understanding and appreciation of the impact of human activities on wildlife populations have improved greatly during the postwar period, there are still a great many information gaps. Virtually no reliable time series data exist on wildlife stocks, for example. Accurate and detailed time series information on land use change is also needed, and this I believe should be a high priority.
In addition, wildlife assets and the various economic benefits they are associated with should be better identified within the standard national accounts. These challenges are all doubly difficult in the present context of shrinking budgets.
I hope this brief round-up of wildlife-related issues as seen from a statistician's perspective has been of interest to the committee members.
I have distributed copies of papers extracted from our publications so you can examine them at your convenience.
Thank you very much for your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
[Translation]
Mr. Fern Filion (Chief, Socio-economics and Marketing Division, National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to present the socio-economic perspective. From what we heard this morning and this afternoon, we can realize how important wildlife animals are to Canadians.
.1630
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the millions of dollars that the Canadian economy is drawing from wildlife, and Chief Blacksmith told us about the the symbolic importance that wildlife can have for Aboriginal peoples. Jack Prescott explained that economic instruments must be developed if we want to be able to protect the animals and Clifford Lincoln strongly supported that idea. Phil Smith's presentation demonstrated that some indicators of the wildlife well-being could be found in our economy. Well, although we recognize the impact of wildlife on the economy, there are very few indicators to show how wildlife can influence Canadian life.
It's hard to make a decision without having this essential data. Quite often, the decisions we make are less valid than they should be since we underestimate the importance of these resources. This can be expensive.
In the next few minutes, I want to give you an idea of the use of statistics to show the major role played by wildlife in the life of Canadians and how wildlife contributes to the provincial economy.
While you listen to me, I would like you to keep in mind that allowing this resource to decline is a risky business. In my presentation, I will quote from reports on the major role played by wildlife in the lives of Canadians. You have received a copy of these reports. First, I will give a summary and a report on the economic benefits. I will be switching between French and English.
These reports are based on studies conducted between 1981 and 1991 in co-operation with all wildlife and plant organizations and Statistics Canada. The studies used a sample of 100,000 Canadians, 15 years old and over, which is in fact representative of 98% of Canadian society. However, we excluded Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
What can be highlighted in these reports? First of all, Canadians engage in a lot of wildlife-related, recreational activities. Let's have a look at the summary, on page 12, the one with the orange lines. There is a table dealing with the popularity of these activities. Looking at the time-series-data, that is from 1981 to 1991, we can see that the rise in the participation rate is similar to the rise in population. On page 18 of the report, one can see that Canadians spend a lot of time on such activities. Now, looking at time-series-data and trends, we see an increase of 34% in the last 10 years as to the amount of time spent in this sector of activities.
My third main comment is that these activities make a major contribution to regional and national economies. This slide shows a 33% increase over 10 years, in current dollars. The slide now on screen shows a summary of the main facts I already discussed.
.1635
The right hand column, the one for the grand total, indicates that about 91% of the Canadian population is involved in these wildlife-related activities.
As for the number of days spent engaged in these activities, we can see that Canadians spend over one billion days enjoying wildlife-related activities.
Finally, as to amounts spent by Canadians in this regard, they amounted to over $8 billion in 1991.
Up to now, we have only spoken of Canadian involvement. What happens if we include American tourists coming here for such activities? The amounts spent reached $9 billion in 1991.
The next slide shows the huge impact that the money spent by Canadians and Americans has on the Canadian economy. For example, we can see they raised the gross domestic product to about $11 billion.
As for government revenues, this sector, by using taxable goods and services, gives some $5 billion each year to federal and provincial governments.
We can see as well that this sector represents a lot of jobs, in fact, over 200,000 Canadian jobs are linked to wildlife-related activities.
[English]
The fourth and final key message that emerges from the study is the fact that there is very strong support for conservation across the country. Julie Gelfand referred to a figure, which I think was that in the order of 86% of the Canadian population supports conservation efforts very strongly. These statistics and others are highlighted on pages 52 and 53 of this highlights report.
Along with these indicators of political or attitudinal support, we also see evidence of willingness to pay for wildlife conservation and protection. So when we ask Canadians if they are willing to pay small increases in prices or taxes ranging from 1% to 5% for a number of goods or services, we see that well over half of the population indicates that it is willing to pay higher prices. Some of the most popular items, if I can use that expression, include taxes on camping and outdoor recreation equipment, prices for wood and paper products, prices for new cars and trucks, and prices for gasoline and oil. When one tries to convert this attitudinal support into actual cash numbers, we see that the value of this willingness to pay would range from about $500 million, if it was a 1% increase in prices, to about $2.5 billion, assuming there was a 5% increase.
Those are some of the main observations that emerge from the custom research that is found in these reports. So what are some of the conclusions that could be drawn from this?
The first conclusion would be along the lines that these reports in fact do provide us with a rather interesting indication of the magnitude of the benefits that fish and wildlife resources provide to the people and the economy of Canada.
A second observation lies along the line that the benefits that have been presented here, although they may seem large, in fact underestimate the true magnitude of the benefits that are provided by these wildlife populations, this by virtue of the fact that the northern populations, people residing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, have not been included in some of the work that we're referring to: underestimates because of the fact that subsistence values and commercial values are not included in the numbers you see here; underestimates because of the fact that some of the important ecological functions that wildlife and habitats will fill have not been given a value.
.1640
Of course there are important contributions in terms of pollination, the fact that worms cultivate the soil and the fact that trees act as a storage for carbon. All these are additional indications of benefits that have not entered into this evaluation.
A third conclusion is the fact that the Statistics Canada instruments, the surveys that are made available there, are in fact a very important instrument to help us to document and monitor any change in these benefits over time.
As part of the conclusion, I thought it would be useful to reflect on how we can use these socio-economic results. How can they be used to influence policy and programs? I've identified about five applications, which I will go through quickly.
The first application, it seems to me, is that these results are very important to help conservation agencies rationalize vital investments in conservation. Conservation programs are often viewed as an important cost to the taxpayer. What we don't often look at is the benefits that they provide.
So the means of rationalizing these programs comes from several indicators in the research we've done. First, we've seen that the activities are popular; about 90% of the people are involved in these activities. Hence there's strong political support.
We've also seen that provincial and federal treasuries receive about $5 billion in receipts annually because of the economic impacts resulting from these activities. We can contrast this to what is actually being spent annually by provincial and federal governments. That amount spent on conservation is about $1 billion. That's a ratio of about 5:1.
I've also talked about willingness to pay in some of the questions that we have asked in our surveys, rather important expressions of support for conservation initiatives.
The second application could be to help demonstrate the important cost to society if we were to allow environmental resources, fish and wildlife resources, to degrade or even to disappear. One of the slides I showed earlier showed that nearly $6 billion in personal income was generated from the economic activities because of wildlife and fish participation. We also saw that about 203,000 jobs are associated with these activities.
These are indications of what is at risk in economic terms if we were to allow these resources to decline.
A third policy and program application deals with the needs to design and to calibrate equitable economic instruments. We saw in Mr. Prescott's intervention this morning that economic incentives were very important, and this was endorsed by Mr. Lincoln. To do the development and calibration of instruments such as those, we need to have evidence of the benefits and the costs that are at stake.
A fourth policy and program application deals with the need to show the linkage between some of these biological resources and the ecotourism industry. So we have a slide to show here. It was drawn from the Globe and Mail in 1993.
[Translation]
This slide shows that Canada suffers from a chronic deficit in terms of travel and tourism. The top line indicates money Canadiens spent overseas, while the one below shows money spent by foreigners in Canada. If we look at the trend between these two lines, we see that the deficit due to tourism and travel grew, from 1983 to 1993, rising from $2 billion to $7 billion.
.1645
This is an important finding and I think wildlife resources could be a means to try to remedy this deficit.
On the next slide, we see the opposite phenomenon. We have here two groups of complementary arrows. The big blue arrows pointing to the north indicate American participation in Canada's ecotourism industry. These figures are for 1991. The red arrows pointing to the south show Canadian ecotourism in the United States. These data have been collected in collaboration with our American colleagues. Each county exchanged information from their surveys on this subject.
The first column, concerning participation, shows that three times as many Americans come to Canada to enjoy our wildlife as Canadians go to the United States to enjoy that country's.
The column at right, concerning spending, shows that Americans spend five times as much in Canada as Canadians spend overseas. Thus, we have here an interesting pattern which is somewhat counterbalancing the overall tourism deficit between our two countries.
[English]
A last policy and program application resides in the fact that we need to revisit the way in which we do the national income accounting practices. I believe there are between 7 and 12 countries in the world now that are looking at the way in which national income accounting practices are being conducted. One of the objectives here is to try to bring in the natural capital in a much more direct manner. What we realize here is that natural capital is practically absent from the way in which national income accounts are prepared.
To try to reflect the important consequence of this, we have on the next slide a quote, which came from Global Biodiversity Strategy, which was published by a number of organizations in 1992. It reads as follows:
- One of the fundamental causes underlying the loss of biodiversity throughout the planet resides
in the fact that societies have failed to value the environment and its resources.
The message you see there is further amplified in the next slide, which is a quote from Bob Repetto from the World Resources Institute:
- A country could exhaust its mineral resources, cut down its forests, erode its soils, pollute its
aquifers, and hunt its wildlife and fisheries to extinction, but measured income would not be
affected as these assets disappeared.
.1650
All of these values should be brought into the big picture. As Mr. Smith has expressed, there are challenges to be faced in doing this; but these challenges should be examined and we should make an effort to move ahead as far as we can on those grounds.
I would like to close my presentation by making two recommendations. The first is found on the next slide.
[Translation]
I would like to make two recommendations to the committee. The first one is aimed at correcting some deficiencies which I tried to identify in my presentation. The first recommendation would be to have the survey on the importance of wildlife for Canadians made preriodically and, above all, be made to encompass a more comprehensive range of values with respect to wildlife and ecosystems. I have mentioned a little while ago some factors that could be included in this wider frame. Naturally, Yukon and Nortwest Territories should also be included as much as possible, as well as the value of water and the non-fiber value of forests.
The second and last recommendation concerns the national accounts. We recommend that the signifiant economic role played by biological resources in sustainable development be more fully recognized by reviewing our income accounting practices and by including the economic role played by biological resources in the State of the Environment Report.
This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your kind attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Filion. We move directly to the question period, with five minutes for each question.
If you will, Mr. Sauvageau.
[English]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Filion, there are few statistics that surprise me. Perhaps you could shed some light on it. In your study I see that you work for Environment Canada. Were the statistics in this particular report provided by Atlantic Canada or Statistics Canada?
Mr. Filion: The figures were obtained from a specialized survey. This survey was designed by Environment Canada, working with Quebec and the other provinces. We then asked Statistics Canada to obtain responses to the questionnaires that were prepared. It was a partnership arrangement.
Mr. Sauvageau: I am going to summarize one paragraph. Canadians spend a lot of their recreational time in wildlife-related activities. In the last sentence you say that the time spent accounts for 34%. What do you mean by percentage of time spent on wildlife-related activities? If I talk about going cycling in the forest, am I doing something that is a wildlife-related activity? How would you identify this? How do you define this?
Mr. Filion: Your question is a good one. We have a whole series of graphs and charts that explain exactly what is meant by these various activities. It all depends on the purpose of your activity. If you are going cycling in the forest, then you will be included in the group that responded to this questionnaire. If you are going on a bike ride simply to get some exercise you will be excluded from the survey. Everything depends on the purpose of your outing.
In the percentages we have a whole range of activities.
We have an observation study. There are people who take trips to study various wildlife. They spend several billion dollars on this. This includes fishing and hunting, as well.
.1655
Mr. Sauvageau: That sheds some light on it.
If I understood, later in your report you say that Canadians are quite willing to increase their taxes to preserve the environment. That would bring in a billion dollars more in revenue, or something like that. Do you not think that, by increasing taxes, that will result in more problems, such as increased illiteracy and increased poverty? I agree that we should spend a billion dollars to have birds in my backyard, but I think there is some type of order of priority that has to be established. I'm sure the people who are listening to us are wondering whether or not you have already set these priorities. I apologize if this question appears to be somewhat simplistic, but people are very concerned by questions and issues such as poverty.
Mr. Filion: Once again, this document is very clear in this. We are very clear about what type of questions we asked. We didn't ask people if they were in favour of increased taxes. We were very precise. We said, would you be willing to spend 1% more for activities; for example, recreational activities for products linked to recreational activities? For example, would people who buy bird feeders be willing to spend a little bit more, 1% more, on products such as these?
This is where we realize we have a great deal of support amongst Canadians.
The Chairman: I apologize.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): In one of the presentations there was some discussion about a problem regarding lead shot and sinkers. A constituent came to my office last fall very concerned about the trumpeter swans in the Wye Marsh. Some of them, from what this individual told me, are also breeding on the shores of Lake Ontario. These birds fly over a vast territory.
I understand that there are some toxic-free shot zones in Ontario. I also understand that the provincial government is considering the possibility of having a province-wide ban.
Could you tell me, from your perspective or from the information you have, how Environment Canada is going to be able to move forward in banning lead shot and sinkers so that we have fewer of these problems associated with our wildlife?
Mr. Wendt: I look at this question in two parts.
The first part relates to the poisoning of waterfowl by lead shot from hunting, which is something we can deal with, for the most part, through the migratory bird regulations, which are federal regulations. The strategy of the department so far has been to work with the provincial governments, who have the greatest contact with hunters and who carry out most of the enforcement of the wildlife regulations. The department has been working with the provinces to develop a strategy to deal with that one problem, which is the poisoning of waterfowl from a hunter's shot.
We realize there are other problems that have to be looked at, including the use of sinkers in fishing, which has been shown to cause poisoning of some bald eagles and is also linked to the poisoning of a number of loons. This is an additional area that we have to look at. There is another problem, which is the secondary poisoning of scavengers. If a prey species is hit by a hunter but not killed, perhaps just wounded, a pellet of lead might stay in the body of that animal and later be consumed by an eagle or a vulture or some other kind of scavenging animal. That can be a source of a toxic chemical for that other wildlife.
We're continuing to look at these other areas of poisoning to see whether our current strategy is sufficient and whether it will do the whole job. We should have a report on that available shortly. When that report will be available, we'll be discussing again with our provincial colleagues a strategy for dealing with the broader situation.
.1700
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The concern I have is that while there are a few toxic-free shot zones in Ontario, these birds cover a very vast territory in terms of their ability to fly. Having a few restricted areas is not good enough. We have some solutions; different kinds of shot can be used that are not toxic to these birds. Every hunting season we go through we're compounding the problem.
When you're dealing with something like the trumpeter swan, you're dealing with the extinction of a species. So we don't have a lot of time for discussion and negotiation, when the problem is easily rectified. I'm having difficulty understanding why it can't be acted on quickly. I would like to clarify what the time line is as opposed to ``we're negotiating''.
The Chairman: A short answer, please.
Mr. Wendt: I should make the answer short because this subject is coming up again tomorrow.
The time line that we know of now for the area you talked about, Wye Marsh, is this year's regulations, I believe. The time line for the majority of hunting in Ontario is the year 2000, but the time line may change, because we're still discussing this with provincial wildlife agencies and the time line may become more rapid.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): My first question is an explanation to Mr. Wendt. In the last page of your brief, under ``Mammals'', there is a sentence for which I'd like an explanation. It says:
- As we develop a broad perspective of biological diversity it is important to look beyond our
close associates and the economically important mammals.
Mr. Wendt: I'm sorry; that wasn't very clear.
What I meant was that the common perception of mammals may be the large game mammals, the fur mammals, and then the ones we are most familiar with because we see them more often, groundhogs and so on. There are a number of other mammal species that are not nearly as familiar to people, things like shrews, kangaroo jumping mice. The whole idea that we have heard mentioned this morning, that biodiversity is not just the most familiar animals, is one I wanted to apply to mammals as well. And bats, if I can add bats.
Mr. DeVillers: The second question is to Mr. Smith. On page 3 of your paper, your second question is:
- To what extent is the problem of chemical contaminants in wildlife habitat becoming more
grave in Canada?
- But tough government regulations have turned the situation around considerably in the past two
decades.
Mr. Smith: In all honesty, it's not based on anything very profound at all. I'm sure your point is very relevant, that the voluntary compliance is also quite important. I don't have any scientific way of giving you the relative importance of the two factors. There certainly has been additional regulation. That is a factor. Whether it is the main factor is debatable.
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): My first question is about attitude. I recall a line from a song: ``I'd rather be a forest than a street''. I think that bespeaks attitude.
I'd like to question Mr. Filion on what he feels about the public attitude in Canada toward the environment. I wonder how deep public dedication to the environment is.
I'd like to cite an example of which, as a former municipal councillor, I have personal knowledge; for example, recycling programs in Canadian cities. It's been shown that if it's right at the curbside, compliance is pretty good; but if it's not and if it requires a bit more commitment from people to, say, take it to a drop-off point, compliance falls way off.
.1705
So I have a two-part question: how deep, in your view, is public dedication to the environment, and how can we improve it?
Mr. Filion: I'm not too sure I can answer the entire question, but I can give you elements of an answer.
In terms of how deep some of these attitudes are, I guess all I can say in response to this is that when we asked the question in 1981, 1987, and 1991, we obtained similar trends in terms of support for the importance of abundant populations, support for programs to protect endangered species, etc. So we are seeing evidence of consistency.
In 1991 we followed this question up with a willingness-to-pay question; in other words, to put your money where your mouth is. We do see a bit of a drop in the support. Whereas the support for abundant wildlife populations was 86%, the willingness-to-pay question was supported by about 61% of the population. So we do see that when money comes into play, there may be fewer supporters. However, the fact remains that well over half the population will still support, at least so they will say in a survey.
Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the ``so they will say'' part, and it leads me to my next question. Do you have any way to measure that by what people actually do? That was how I started my question, what people actually do and what their habits are. What demonstrates that they're actually willing to pay more? Is there anything that you can base that on?
Mr. Filion: I don't have any work that is readily available now to demonstrate that, but I can draw your attention to some of the other results in the survey, where you see people going out and observing wildlife and spending large amounts of money to participate in this. So the expenditures and the amount of time they invest are indications that they are serious.
Mr. Smith: Perhaps I could make one brief addition to Fern's reply. Statistics Canada also occasionally conducts a survey on households and the environment, where we ask households specifically whether they buy things like programmable thermostats, whether they recycle, and so on. By looking at the responses to that survey, one can get some sort of an impression of how much actual spending is going on. However, it isn't a complete answer to your question.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Mr. Filion, on pages 53 and 54 of your report you talk about a willingness of Canadians to pay for protection of wildlife from pollution. Perhaps that's similar to their willingness to pay for habitat conservation. Does your data say to you that Canadians are indeed really aware, that they have a desire to do the right thing, that this desire is tempered by their basic economic health, and that their ability to pay for these environmental desirables is affected by that?
I look at your provincial scales and see that they're almost directly in line with the relative health of the provinces. Therefore, beyond education, perhaps what really needs to be done by the federal government in the short term is to deal with the economy so that individuals are not dictated to perhaps by overtaxation as a burden. But if Canadians are in a better economic climate, they will voluntarily do the right thing and spend money on the environment for preservation, as reflected in your studies. This is what it looks like to me from your data here.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Filion: There are indeed important provincial differences as one goes across Canada. If you in fact look at some of the provincial comparisons in the document, you will see that activities that are extractive, such as hunting, are much more popular in the east than in the west. Of course the reverse is true when it comes to non-consumptive or non-extractive activities, where you find these being much more popular in the west than in the east. Of course in terms of attitudinal support you will find that people closer to the Pacific coast are in fact more supportive. I don't know if this is correlated with economic status.
.1710
My initial assumption was that the way of life in certain provinces is much closer to the land. For example, I can see Newfoundlanders and people in certain parts of the Atlantic provinces being much more dependent on hunting than those in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Forseth: If someone is closer to the land, they would certainly have an awareness of how to preserve and protect that land. Yet, looking at your data, I see that Newfoundland is one of the lowest in your scales of willingness to pay. Especially when I look at the distribution, it looks as if the willingness to pay is directly related to ability to pay.
I'll go on to talk about those general concepts, to bring it down to something tangible. Let's talk about trees, for instance. What's the balance between trees that are cut down versus trees that are left standing? In other words, what can we do to keep the forest economy intact and also keep the environmental community happy? There has to be a medium there, a sense of trade-off, that is efficacious for all concerned. Maybe you can talk about those kinds of balances and trade-offs.
Mr. Filion: I believe that someone from the tourism department would be better placed than myself to answer that. However, what I can say is that you can make money from the forests by chopping down the trees. You can also make money from the forests by drawing people in as ecotourists, and I think some provinces are working on programs of this type.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I want to apologize to the witnesses for not being here for their presentations. However, I appreciate the material you've given us.
From my own observation it seems that the status, variety and quantity of wildlife have changed in this country over time. My first question is - and if it has been answered, I apologize - what have been the major changes in wildlife populations in Canada over this century? In your opinion, has the situation improved or deteriorated? Is it in better shape today than it was a century ago?
I might just say that the answer one expects may be different from the answer you might give me. With regard to birds and amphibians, I would say we're not nearly in as good shape.
For instance, there are probably more deer in my constituency than there have ever been, and perhaps it's the same for beavers.
Mr. Wendt: The quick answer to your question is that things have changed a lot over that time period and they've changed most where people are found. I mentioned in my presentation that most of the problems we see in freshwater fisheries are related to the proximity to a human habitat. I shouldn't say human habitat, but you know what I mean - where humans live. The same applies to most of the other points I've made.
So if we look just at wildlife, things have definitely deteriorated over the time frame you referred to. The range of many species has been restricted. That applies to reptile species and amphibian species. Most of the species that are on the list of vulnerable, threatened and endangered species would have had a larger range in the earlier time you mentioned.
It is true that where people have been, they've made changes that have benefited some species. What you said is true about deer, but one species becoming abundant while a number of species are becoming rarer is in total a loss of biodiversity.
Mr. Finlay: Which human activities, if we could look at them in broad terms, such as travel, urbanization, resource industries, or pollution - you've already partly answered the question - are having the most profound effect on wildlife?
Mr. Wendt: It's always hard to talk about today. It's easier to talk with the wisdom of a little bit of hindsight. If we look at the activity of pollution through pesticides such as DDT, which we learned something about, that was an activity that had an effect on wildlife that was way beyond what would be apparent, because it turned out that DDT and similar chemicals were very toxic in a secondary way to many species of birds. So I just want to underline that the type of activity is very important. It's not just the fact that people are living here and doing things, but that what they do makes a great difference.
.1715
So the elimination of some of the chemicals I mentioned and also a general clean-up of the Great Lakes have over the last 20 years been very beneficial for many species of wildlife.
The Chairman: There will be three questions from the chair, and then there is time for a brief second round for some at least.
Mr. Smith, on page 2 of your paper you say:
- Wildlife products such as fish and furs directly account for less than half of one percent of the
gross domestic product.
Mr. Smith: There are no surveys on that that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman, but I must confess that I'm not particularly knowledgeable with regard to aboriginal statistics.
In my remarks, certainly I would put emphasis on the word ``directly''.
Where we have most success with statistics is in measuring goods that are priced in the market-place. There are, of course, a lot of goods vital to humans - for example, air that we breathe - that are absolutely crucial to life but yet don't flow through the market-place and aren't priced. Therefore we don't count them as economic activities.
The value of work done in the household by all of us around this table is another example of an important production activity that isn't valued in our GDP statistics.
Regarding the use of wildlife by aboriginal communities, I sense it's, as you say, very, very important to them. However, my answer to your question is that, no, I'm not aware of any surveys specifically on that.
The Chairman: Perhaps it might be desirable to do that in order to give an accurate picture that would take into account regional and local variations rather than an average national picture.
Mr. Wendt, in your excellent overview that you gave us, I was looking desperately for a sentence or two that would give us an idea as to whether or not high-rise urban development has any impact on the movement of migratory birds. Yet I couldn't find it. Is there any reason why you didn't mention that factor? Is it so small?
Mr. Wendt: It's because I wasn't sure what to say about that. It is true that not only high-rise buildings and buildings built with a lot of glass but also certain other structures, such as antennas and the guy wires on antennas, can kill a number of birds. I just don't personally have an appreciation for how that fits into the overall population of birds. However, I know that techniques, including the use of strobe lights on some high structures and so on, have been shown to be quite effective in minimizing those losses.
The Chairman: Don't you think that the Canadian Wildlife Service could conduct a useful study on this matter for the public and perhaps give some guidance on future construction?
Mr. Wendt: I'm not particularly familiar with the issue, but I think to some extent that has been done. The phenomenon is not only in Canada but is repeated in other countries. It is known that things such as the use of strobe lights can reduce the losses.
The Chairman: Could you provide some information to this committee tomorrow or on Thursday?
Mr. Wendt: Sure.
The Chairman: Mr. Filion, you quoted Repetto on the issue of not valuing in actual capital. There are in your department, I understand, a number of economists. What are they doing to provide you with the ammunition to develop that theme in a convincing manner?
Mr. Filion: One of the first steps that has to be done is to come to grips with the way in which natural capital is used outside the market-place. As Mr. Smith indicated, at Statistics Canada they can in fact look at numbers regarding actual expenditures. However, in many cases the way in which natural capital benefits people is not in the market-place. It's not well documented. This means that we need to develop tools to get at the values of these goods and services.
.1720
The Chairman: Yes, and we have heard that over the last 15 years.
My questions is, what is being done by your department or by Statistics Canada in revising the national income accounting?
Mr. Filion: Within Environment Canada we have begun to try to put a face to these values. You have an example of some accomplishment in the reports on the importance of wildlife.
Also, in the last ten months we have created within the Department of the Environment a task force on environmental evaluation. I am currently the chairperson of that task force. So over the next few years we hope to be able to do a better job at coming to grips with some of the values associated with environmental goods and services. I think what we will do with those results is go to Statistics Canada and work in collaboration with them to see how those kinds of results could be included in perhaps novel satellite accounts.
This is something that Environment Canada is receptive to, and I believe that Statistics Canada perhaps is also interested in exploring this with us.
Mr. Smith: Statistics Canada has been working on a project to develop environmental accounts that link up to the traditional national accounts for the last three years or so. We have a number of publications reporting on the work done to date.
In essence, a key part of that is that we're trying to expand the scope of the national balance-sheet. The traditional national balance-sheet includes only commercially valued assets, such as residential real estate, capital buildings, bridges, highways and so on. We're working to expand the balance-sheet to include the value of Canadian forests, the value of Canadian subsoil minerals, and the value of the fish and wildlife stocks, but there are considerable difficulties in placing a value on some of these assets, as you can imagine.
Our approach is to try to measure these assets first in physical terms, quantity terms, cubic metres of timber or cubic metres of crude oil beneath the ground; then, as a second stage, to try to put a value on them. We're using the net rental approach for valuation. I won't go into that in detail.
We are making considerable progress in expanding the balance-sheet within the system of national accounts to include environmental assets.
The Chairman: Perhaps, Mr. Smith, you could provide members of this committee with some additional information in print in the next little while.
Mr. Smith: I would be pleased to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: First, I would like to put a question to Mr. Filion. I looked for your document to find where the Canadian public said it accepted. I didn't find this, but I found something else about which I would like to ask you some questions. You said we should develop wildlife tourism in order to bring in Americans and other people from abroad. You have to take into account tourism development and related construction. I am thinking, for instance, of Banff Park where we want to increase tourism but this, in turn, is harmful for wildlife and the site. This also must be taken into account.
I had several questions to ask you, but I will limit myself to one. We saw a slide on the number of American tourists who came here and the number of Canadians going down there. It is true that three times as many Americans came here, but in percentage terms, the line should be the other way. 1.8 million Americans came here as opposed to 500,000 Canadians who went there but since there are 10 times more of them than us, shouldn't the table be in percentage figures instead of actual numbers? Wouldn't this provide a more accurate picture of the situation?
This is the groundwork for more questions, but I will abide by what my chairman says.
The Chairman: A short answer, please.
Mr. Filion: I think we're referring to the baseline of the graph. There are several ways to select a baseline. We chose a Canadian baseline. Indeed, there are 10 times fewer Canadians, but the number of visitors to Canada is much higher than the number of Canadians who go abroad. The bottom line is what is the impact here. This graph was prepared using figures from the preceding graph about the deficit.
.1725
I was showing you a wildlife example: wildlife tourism bucks the trend of general tourism nationwide. This is an indirect way to stem the money drain.
Mr. Sauvageau: I don't have any more questions, but didn't you also, using the same graph, say something about Banff, for instance? No? Very well.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This idea of ecological accounting is of great concern to me, as it is to other members on the committee.
Following a little bit what the chair has stated, I guess I'm trying to understand how you may have been involved with the finance department. It's the finance department that is responsible for setting the budget and so on. If there are going to be any changes to our understanding of how our national accounts are taken, is there any interaction with the finance department?
Secondly, there has been a proposal for a commissioner on sustainable development. I am just wondering if the commissioner could be of service to you in your pursuit of including ecological accounting into our national accounts system.
Mr. Smith: Yes, we're very much in contact with the Department of Finance. Although their degree of interest isn't high at this stage, we keep them fully informed on what we're doing.
I would like to emphasize that our plan is not to change the traditional accounts, which have proved of great value to Canada, and indeed to other countries, but rather to develop a satellite account that links in with the existing account so that no damage will be done to the existing, quite valuable system. Where it will all eventually evolve is difficult to say.
As Fern mentioned, about a dozen countries are presently working on environmental accounting, and I think it offers considerable hope for the future.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was at a G-7 ministers of the environment conference last year with the minister, and ecological accounting was one of the top agenda items with the G-7 ministers. Obviously we're not going to make any headway in this area unless we can account for these things. I believe we are going to continue to have problems with our deficit until we can account for these kinds of things.
I am also wondering if there is a possibility that the commissioner on sustainable development might be able to assist in....
The Chairman: [Inaudible]...into the future.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Smith, all through the day there has been a lot of talk about land use, and I think it's obvious why. On page 4 of your brief, in the concluding comments, you say ``Accurate and detailed time series information on land-use change is also needed''. Exactly what are you getting at with that statement?
Mr. Smith: We obviously have only so much land available in Canada. It is used for different purposes. Humanity has been spreading out over that land and taking more and more of it for its own use in the development of Canada. Some of those uses are more benign in terms of their effect on the environment generally than others.
What I am trying to say there is that, to get an appreciation for what we're doing over time by changing land use, we need time series information on all the different uses of land across the country. We're presently trying to build a detailed database that will tell us right now what percentage of the land is used for residential purposes, what percentage is used for mining, what percentage is used for this kind of agriculture, that kind of agriculture and so on, and what percentage is left as different types of wilderness.
It would be nice if we could go backward and forward in time looking at how that is changing and has changed in the past. That's what I am trying to say.
Mr. O'Brien: Revisit a subdivision or some kind of a land development so many years after the fact and see what it has done to the surrounding wildlife.
Mr. Smith: Precisely.
Mr. Forseth: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is currently under review by this committee.
.1730
Do any of you have any specific recommendations on how the act itself could be improved based on your particular expertise and particular perspective?
The Chairman: Both departments have appeared before the committee in the past.
Mr. Forseth: I understand that.
The Chairman: They need to be given notice for answering a wide-ranging question such as yours. I hope you will understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: My question this time is for Mr. Wendt or Mr. Smith. In your view, are Bills C-23 and C-24 as recently reviewed by the Committee, adequate or do you have suggestions for improvement, if they could be amended quickly? Do you feel comfortable with this legislation in your work? Do you have adequate tools to work with?
Mr. Smith: Honestly, I don't know. That's my answer.
Mr. Sauvageau: Maybe Mr. Wendt -
[English]
Mr. Wendt: The one act that deals with migratory bird conservation is an act that implements a treaty, so one of the questions there is, how is the treaty being implemented? Currently there are negotiations under way to make improvements to the treaty itself vis-à-vis access for northern residents, aboriginal residents and so on during the springtime.
So those kinds of improvements are clearly needed. Beyond that kind of change, I don't have any observations.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you. For a water fowl, it's the same thing. So far everything is fine, but could improvements be made to the Canada - U.S. water fowl conservation plan?
[English]
Mr. Wendt: The plan had a substantial improvement because -
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Is the Canada - U.S. water fowl conservation plan adequate at this time?
[English]
Mr. Wendt: We had a major improvement in that the Government of Mexico also signed the plan. That was very significant, because a number of species have important wintering grounds in Mexico. That change to the plan was made just in the past year. So we're looking forward to great progress with Mexico in that endeavour.
The Chairman: You have given us quite an amount of food for thought - very substantial.
We want to thank you, Mr. Filion, Mr. Wendt and Mr. Smith.
This meeting stands adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon, when we will hear about habitat and endangered species.