Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Kevin McNamee]

We'll have to get back to you on whether that is an accurate figure or not and respond to the question.

However, I do reiterate that several years ago we were accorded approximately $85 million plus to invest in conservation and restoration projects, and again I reiterate: the largest amount in the agency's history. Through a successive number of budgets, as we have provided the committee with, there is an extensive amount of funding that has gone into the creation of new national parks and marine conservation areas, with a significant portion of that going toward furthering our relationships with aboriginal people. We'll get back to you on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We are going to have to move on, because you won't have time to answer another question.

Mr. Stetski, go ahead.

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

For the benefit of the committee, I will be here throughout the duration of this study, acting for Nathan. I have spent my entire life working with Manitoba Parks, BC Parks, and national parks, so I have a very deep personal interest in this discussion.

Thank you all very much for being here. My first question for the witnesses is this. The targets are there, and I hope they are interim targets, as Mr. Amos mentioned. There was some talk last night about a 50% target across the globe, and I think at some point there should be a discussion across government on what the long-term target should be.

Just looking at the representation from the different departments that are here, I am wondering who is coordinating the overall effort to get to these, 10% of marine territory and 17% of our land. I am almost thinking that there should be something like a protected areas accord, similar to the health accord, which involves provincial ministers and territorial ministers. Somebody needs to take leadership overall on how Canada is going to get to these interim targets of 10% and 17%, and then make sure that we get there. I am not even sure who to ask, which is part of my challenge, I guess, since you are from different departments.

[Kevin McNamee]

I'll take a swing.

First of all, as Mr. Stringer pointed out, the mandate letters for both the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard as well as our Minister of Environment and Climate Change have provided that mandate on the marine side. Under the Oceans Act, it is DFO that has the lead for that, and we are working with them collaboratively, as is Environment Canada.

On the terrestrial side, again, our two departments are collaborating, but Parks Canada and the Government of Alberta have agreed to co-chair a federal, provincial, and territorial working group to work on that path.

There is some leadership. At the same time, there is a strong element of collaboration through various federal, provincial, and territorial bodies that exist.

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

Again, you may need to send this in written form, because there might not be time today. I am interested in how many FTEs each department is allocating towards the goal. We know from the priorities and planning report that Parks Canada, for example, is allotting only four people for the national park establishment and three people for the marine conservation establishment across all of Canada, so seven people in total. Is that enough, and does that give enough priority to this conservation initiative?

[Kevin McNamee]

In part, I think we can get back to you with better numbers. As the director of protected areas establishment and conservation, I am not sure when those numbers are from. We have some more staff, and through budget 2016-17 we will be able to add some additional staff.

On the other hand, I think it is important to point out that, certainly within our agency, we engage the Parks Canada team of executive leaders and people who are located in the field, people who work in the aboriginal affairs directorate, and people who work across the agency. It is not just seven people having the job within the branch that delivers new areas. It requires a team, and we have that across Parks Canada. They may not be checked into that box, but they work, help, and contribute.

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

I fell off the conservation bandwagon for three years and became mayor of Cranbrook. I worked with a lot of developers who were required to set aside 5% of the land for green space. I became very interested in quality as well as quantity.

When you are looking to fill these targets of 10% and 17%, do you have the science capability to make sure we are getting the best pieces of land from a quality perspective as well as hectares in quantity?

[Kevin Stringer]

I am happy to respond to that one from the marine side.

One of the reasons we are still in the game in terms of getting from 1% to 5% by next year, and 10% by 2020, is the amount of science we have done. Most of the investment in the oceans program is largely about identifying where the ecologically and biologically significant areas are, where the corals and sponges are, and where the areas that need protecting for various life processes of species are. We have done a lot of science, and we are quite confident in terms of having identified those areas. It is difficult to do in the marine environment, but that work is largely done.

I would note that you mentioned industry. Industry is going to be an important partner in this, as well. Fishermen and indigenous groups have an enormous amount of local information that we are going to have to depend on in terms of being confident about areas that need to be protected and how we actually protect them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're just about out of time, Mr. Stetski. You won't have time to ask another question, but you will get a second round.

Next up is Mr. Aldag.

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

Thanks to all the witnesses for coming in today.

I spent my career, 32 years, with Parks Canada. Heritage conservation is something that's very near and dear to me. I spent my early years listening to things like the green plan and the Brundtland commission and our commitments to conservation.

I'll tell you, I'm proud of the accomplishments we've made as a public service and government over the years. I'll also tell you that I'm frustrated that we haven't gone far enough fast enough. The kinds of questions and answers I'd like to get to today are your thoughts on how we can achieve these objectives that we have before us. We had persons from Parks Canada come in, and the comment was made that it will take us decades to complete the systems plan. I simply say that it's not good enough.

We have a plan that was developed in the 1970s. We know the 39 regions. It's like, what's left...and not only what's left to complete, but are the existing areas...? We saw with the Nahanni a great example of recognizing that the ecological integrity wasn't possible there, and we saw a great expansion through collaboration with first nations, with the indigenous communities. I think there are huge opportunities related to our reconciliation agenda with aboriginal communities, using protected spaces to do some great work there.

I would just throw that out to each of you. I won't leave it wide open; I'll get into some specifics.

Kevin, I'll start with you, just because I know your program probably the best. What do we need to do to push through? What would it take to complete the systems plan in four years? How can we get there? To me, the time has passed to do the planning. Now it's time for action. How do we support you in completing the systems plan, or this phase of it?

[Kevin McNamee]

I suppose I can't just give a response similar to the one for Mr. Amos, that I'll get back to you in writing.

Part of what I want to emphasize goes back to my concluding remarks on the kinds of things that I think would certainly help in terms of completing a systems plan: political leadership and commitment. I think we have enjoyed that going back to 1989 and the green plan. There's also public and stakeholder support.

It's not just about science. I would say to the committee that you can have the best science, and you can have different levels of science input. We have a good idea of the areas we want to protect. But it really does take the time to build the necessary trust and commitment you need from other governments that are prepared to transfer the land, the surface, and the subsurface to us, and securing the trust of indigenous communities and people. We have found in some places that takes time. Sometimes they're ahead of us, sometimes we're ahead of them. Having the ongoing support and funding to be able to invest in delivering those relationships is critical.

I will not say to the committee that we can absolutely do that in four years, because I think our track record is that in some communities where they're changing leadership, changing conditions, it does take time. I think all of us in each department are facing that challenge of meeting the targets, but building it in such a way that we are respectful of the nation-to-nation relationship that we need to address.

I think consistent leadership, consistent commitment, consistent funding, consistent support, at times making the necessary decisions around particular boundaries—that's the way to go.

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

Before I move on, I will give you a chance to send us something in writing. I have requested this before, but we haven't received it yet. I'd simply like an update on the systems plan, where we're at and what areas we have identified, study areas or zones or regions we have identified. Just give us a sense of where the whole Parks Canada systems plan is at, and its advancement.

I'd like to move my questioning now to Environment Canada for a quick comment. There were some comments made about migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. I've looked for things like systems plans and I haven't found anything. It may be in a website that I simply haven't found.

What guides Environment Canada in determining areas for setting aside for conservation? Perhaps you can give updates on that, if you have an intact or valid plan, and on where you're at. What guides the expansion of the systems of migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas and those other kinds of things under your jurisdiction?

You can give it to us in writing as well.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

We'll have to follow up on it in writing, but in one area particularly, migratory birds, we've just completed over 20 or so bird conservation area plans. We can certainly provide you with them. They are all laid out on the website, and you can access them.

Increasingly, as our mandate includes not just migratory birds but also species at risk, recent work within the Canadian wildlife service is looking at how we look at both preventing species becoming species at risk, but also addressing the areas where the species are at risk, and looking at those areas to focus our efforts. We can provide you more detail in writing.

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

Particularly the context for how you develop those target areas and what else is there. Is your system of migratory bird sanctuaries now complete or is more to come, and what guides that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'll ask a broad question and ask for brief responses orally, and then in writing to follow up.

I hope our civil service will say they need a lot more money; they need the investment; they want to fight for more investment in conservation. It's not just about conservation, as Mr. Stringer pointed out so nicely, this is about our natural capital infrastructure. We need to invest in it. It's about our tourism economies as well. We know this is good value. But I feel as though we need the wherewithal as politicians. We need the information brought to our attention, so we can make the case at the political level for the budget that is really required to achieve our conservation objectives.

I'd like some frank responses, please. What do we need to put a human on the moon, so to speak? What do we need to complete our systems plan? What kind of serious investment is required?

[Julie Gelfand]

A couple of the protected area systems have almost zero money. When you look at national wildlife areas, they have a little more money than migratory bird sanctuaries, probably nothing. There's no money for bird conservation regions and conservation strategies. There's lots of money for the North American waterfowl management plan protecting ducks; protecting other bird species, not so much. National Parks has the most significant budget. I'm not throwing in the DFO thing. I haven't figured out where they rank. You need to know there are a couple of systems of protected areas that have almost zero funding.

[Kevin McNamee]

Here is an example of what I provided to the committee.

We received significant funding in budget 2003. We finally expended all the funds under that budget by 2010-11. We delivered over 100,000 square kilometres. I can get you the numbers. My point is we got a fair amount of funding, but it took time to negotiate the necessary agreements from provincial governments to get them to agree to transfer the surface and subsurface to Canada to manage as national parks. It took significant time in communities to gain the necessary level of support and to negotiate impact and benefit agreements. To a certain extent it was the time it took to build trust. Part of our history is a history of expropriation in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere. In some communities we still encounter a fear that's what we're going to do. Sometimes the federal government is not necessarily welcomed when it arrives in a community. A whole range of other issues casts some distrust. We are not going to force the creation of a new national park or an NMCA on a community.

We invest the time and the funding to achieve those relationships. It's difficult, and sometimes there may not necessarily be the level of support to achieve it, but we work through it. I think we've demonstrated a tremendous record of success through the last couple of decades, but it is taking time.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

There was a line item in the budget for a bike trail to connect Banff and Jasper National Parks, I believe—some $60-odd million more infrastructure. My recollection from Mr. Watson's testimony previously was that the total amount of funding available for parks' establishment anticipated for this year was $44 million. I'm just wondering, with respect to parks management plans that are in place, where this trail fits into the bigger picture of our expenditures.

[Kevin McNamee]

I hate to pull the “that's not an issue I'm familiar with”...but it's not an issue I am familiar with. I haven't been involved in the planning in that.

Again, on the national park and the national marine conservation area side, we receive budgetary allocations to do the necessary planning and consultation. A significant portion of that provides financial support to aboriginal communities so that they have the capacity to engage with us, and then the funding under budget 2016 is adequate to establish both Thaidene Nëné and Lancaster Sound, once we get the agreements.

I'm sorry I can't give you a comparison between what the money in the budget buys you for the Jasper trail and establishment.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for following up on just explaining what the proposal is about and why it appeared in the budget without prior consultation. I wasn't aware of it. There are a lot of people who weren't aware. That would be helpful to know.

[Kevin McNamee]

We'll get back to the committee on that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you, Mr. Amos.

We're moving on to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you to all of you for your very helpful contribution to this discussion. I think you will have noticed that I didn't cut my teeth on the conservation side. I was reasonably prolific on the user side, having explored places like the Chilcotin Trail, the West Coast Trail, Bowron Lakes, the Skyline Trail and the Rockwall in the Rockies, Stein Valley—all spectacular areas. I've come to very much appreciate the responsibility that rests on our shoulders to protect those natural areas.

I'd like to go back to Mr. McNamee, and Mr. Stringer, you can jump in as well.

We've talked a fair bit about the protected areas, the marine and terrestrial protected areas, and our targets of 10% and 17%. How optimistic are you that we're actually going to achieve those 2020 targets? I want a frank assessment of that.

By the way, I did appreciate, Mr. McNamee, your effort to explain all the work that's required to actually move forward with adding additional areas for protection. There's the science involved, and then beyond that there's the community consultations involved. You mentioned that it is not government's desire to impose national parks where local communities oppose them. One that's certainly close to where I live would be the South Okanagan area, where there was a proposal for a national park, opposed by many and supported by many. These are the challenges you face.

How optimistic are you that we're actually going to achieve those targets by 2020, or is that a stretch?

[Kevin McNamee]

I'm going to say I'm quite optimistic, and the reason I say that is this country demonstrated, during the 1990s, that it could triple the amount of protected area in Canada through something that was called the Endangered Spaces Campaign that featured, as Mr. Stringer said, an all-in approach by governments, conservation organizations like some that you will hear from on Thursday—the Nature Conservancy, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society—indigenous people, industry contributing by voluntarily giving up hydrocarbon leases in a number of proposed areas like Gwaii Haanas and Grasslands National Park. There's a lot of public support around it. I think in part given the government's direction to engage indigenous communities respectfully on a nation-to-nation basis, there is a large degree of broad support for achieving these goals, and with the funding and investment that we've had, we should be able to make some good progress.