Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[An hon. member]

That would be better.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let's do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. I definitely wanted to be respectful of your interest in bringing it forward, but I think that's the right idea.

Let's get back to our agenda. Thanks to all of you for that.

Thanks for your patience. I welcome our panel.

We have five departments and agencies in front of us today: the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, with Julie Gelfand, George Stuetz, Francine Richard, and James Reinhart; the Department of the Environment, with Sue Milburn-Hopwood and Robert McLean; the Parks Canada Agency, with Nadine Crookes and Kevin McNamee; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with Kevin Stringer and Jeff MacDonald; and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with Allan MacDonald and Susan Waters.

Thanks very much to all of you for being here today. We have a very large group of panellists willing to share a lot of very important information with us. We will get right to it.

I think Julie Gelfand is up first.

[Julie Gelfand, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development]

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to present an overview of our audit work tabled in the House of Commons in 2012 and 2013 with regard to terrestrial and marine parks, and conservation areas.

I'm accompanied by George Stuetz, Francine Richard, and James Reinhart, directors who were responsible for these audits. I'd like to note that we have not audited actions taken since these reports were completed.

Canada is the second-largest country in the world and we have the longest coastline. With our small population, large land base, and coastline, Canada, unlike many other countries in the world, has the ability to establish large and linked protected areas. In effect, one of Canada's main approaches to protecting biodiversity is to establish protected areas to maintain habitats for wildlife including migratory birds and species at risk.

In 2012, we reported on the status of marine protected areas in Canada. This audit found that 20 years after Canada signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, only about 1% of our oceans and Great Lakes was protected. At the time of our audit, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had established eight marine protected areas, and Parks Canada had officially established two national marine conservation areas, and two more were in the works.

Our audit showed that at the rate of progress we observed, it would take Canada many decades to establish a fully functioning network of marine protected areas and to achieve the international target of conserving 10% of marine areas. In the interim, significant conservation and economic benefits would not be realized.

Some of the economic benefits of marine biodiversity include fishing, both commercial and recreational, fish processing, and marine tourism. Together, these contributed $7.6 billion to Canada's GDP in 2006.

In our fall 2013 audit of protected areas for wildlife, we found that Environment Canada had not met its responsibilities for preparing management plans and monitoring the condition of its protected areas.

Environment Canada's protected areas, including national wildlife and migratory bird sanctuaries, were roughly the size of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined.

Only about one quarter of national wildlife areas, and less than one third of migratory bird sanctuaries, were assessed as having adequate or excellent ecological integrity.

In addition, 90% of national wildlife areas did not have adequate management plans, and these plans were more than 20 years old.

Finally, monitoring was done sporadically. The department could not track ecosystem or species changes and address emerging threats.

We recommended that Environment Canada develop relevant management plans to ensure that its protected areas would fulfill their intended purpose as refuges for wildlife.

In our fall 2013 audit of the conservation of migratory birds, we found that grassland bird populations had declined by 45% since the 1970s, mostly due to habitat destruction. However, efforts to conserve other bird species had been successful. From 1986 to 2012, Canada and the United States invested almost $2 billion in the North American waterfowl management plan.

The plan resulted in securing eight million hectares of wetlands and uplands habitat in Canada, with increases in many different waterfowl populations. We also found in that audit that Environment Canada had a goal of developing 25 strategies for bird conservation regions by 2010. As of July 2013, nine of the 25 strategies were completed and four were in draft form. However, Environment Canada, essentially the Canadian wildlife service, had no budget to contribute to the implementation of these strategies, unlike under the North American waterfowl management plan.

In our fall 2013 audit of ecological integrity in national parks, we found that despite Parks Canada's significant efforts in many areas, the agency was struggling to protect ecosystems in Canada's parks.

Staffing in the science work stream was reduced by 33% in the 2013-14 fiscal year, compared with the average staffing during the previous seven years. In addition, in 2008, the agency allocated $42,000 per park to implement ecological monitoring programs. The actual funding was subsequently reduced to $15,000 per park.

At the time of our audit, Parks Canada had yet to assess the condition of 41% of park ecosystems in order to determine conservation requirements. Of the 59% it had assessed, many were in poor condition and a third were in decline. The agency had not clarified how and by when it intended to complete its assessments or address threats to the integrity of ecosystems in Canada's parks.

Protecting Canada's natural heritage is a challenge and an opportunity. The federal government has a global responsibility to carry out its important leadership role in protecting species and spaces, particularly in a large country like Canada. The economic benefits are significant. They include sustaining commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, and the provision of ecosystem services such as clean water, climate control, and pollination.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I would like to sincerely thank you and your committee members for the invitation to appear today to speak about our past audit work. As parliamentarians, you play a crucial role in the accountability process. We would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gelfand. I think we should have you as an honorary member of the committee. You're in front of us almost every time we have witnesses. We really appreciate what you bring to the committee.

Next up is the Department of the Environment.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

Good morning. My name is Sue Milburn-Hopwood, I am the acting assistant deputy minister for the Canadian wildlife service. We oversee Environment and Climate Change Canada’s work on biodiversity and manage the department’s protected areas program. Bob McLean, who is with me today, is the director general of assessment and regulatory affairs for the Canadian wildlife service, and until recent organizational changes, he was responsible for the Canadian wildlife service’s work on biodiversity goals and targets, as well as our protected areas program.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is the federal department responsible for coordinating the implementation of the United Nations convention on biodiversity. This responsibility means we led the work to develop the 2020 biodiversity goals and targets that Canada announced in 2015.

Given this role, I'll provide some overall context on behalf of the federal departments represented here today, and then I'll talk about our own protected areas in the department.

I'll begin by describing what the term “protected areas” means, and the rationale for them. A good definition comes from the International Union for the Conservation on Nature, or IUCN. A protected area is a clearly defined geographic space, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystems, services, and cultural values.

Protected areas are referred to by many names. We have national or provincial parks, we have national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, ecological or nature reserves, wilderness areas, community conservation areas, and even ecological gifts. These are the mainstay of biodiversity conservation.

By protecting the natural environment—our “natural capital” so to speak—protected areas contribute to maintaining the ecological services upon which we depend: clean water, protection from natural events such as flooding, and mitigation of the effects of drought. For indigenous communities, protected areas can provide a source of food and a place to sustain traditional practices. At the local level, protected areas can contribute to people’s livelihoods and provide recreational as well as economic opportunities. Finally, and increasingly importantly, they have a role in helping mitigate and adapt to climate change. It has been estimated the global network of protected areas stores at least 15% of terrestrial carbon.

The role and importance of protected areas to conserving biodiversity has been recognized internationally. In October 2010, in Nagoya, Japan, parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to the strategic plan for biodiversity for 2011-20, and the Aichi targets, as the basis for halting and eventually reversing the loss of the planet’s biodiversity. In February of last year, based on the Aichi targets, Canada adopted the 2020 biodiversity goals and targets for Canada. They describe 19 medium-term results to be achieved through the collective efforts of both public and private partners. Our national targets were developed through engagement with provinces, territories, national indigenous organizations, non-government organizations, and others. These goals and targets are guiding our actions and our investments in many aspects of biodiversity, including the creation of new protected areas.

Consistent with the global target, the Canadian target for protected areas is that “by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, are conserved through networks of protected areas or other effected area-based conservation measures”. These targets are for Canada as a whole, and progress will be monitored at the national level.

All levels of government and sectors have important roles to play in conserving biodiversity. Canada’s protected area system includes federal, provincial, territorial, indigenous, and private conservation organizations that aim to create and manage protected areas.

To reach these goals, sustained effort will be needed for Canada to meet the 17% terrestrial target and the 10% marine target by 2020.

For the terrestrial target, Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada are working to develop a road map in collaboration with provinces and territories. Recently, at a Canadian Parks Council meeting with provinces and territories, there was agreement to establish a multi-jurisdictional working group, co-chaired with Alberta, which was tasked with developing that road map by May 2017.

In order to contribute to these conservation targets, some of the departments and agencies in the federal government can create protected areas through various types of legislation, and for different reasons.

At Environment and Climate Change Canada, we focus on protecting key biodiversity areas, places that are important for wildlife, particularly habitat for migratory birds and species at risk. We establish migratory bird sanctuaries under regulations pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and we designate national wildlife areas under regulations under the Canada Wildlife Act. Ours is the second-largest protected area system in Canada, encompassing an area of 12.4 million hectares of terrestrial and marine habitat, an area twice the size of Nova Scotia. The Environment and Climate Change Canada system includes 54 national wildlife areas and 92 migratory bird sanctuaries.

As we have colleagues with us today from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Parks Canada Agency, I'll make only brief comments about their protected areas. For its part, DFO focuses on marine ecosystems and species, protecting these under the Oceans Act. The Parks Canada Agency seeks to protect representative examples of Canada’s natural landscapes and seascapes under the National Parks Act or under the National Marine Conservation Areas Act.

Currently 10% of terrestrial areas and inland waters, and 1% of marine and coastal areas, are protected. The federal government manages about half of the area currently protected in Canada. This includes 45% of terrestrial protected areas and 83% of marine protected areas. Other levels of government make up the majority of the remaining protected areas in Canada. For Environment and Climate Change Canada, our current protected areas network accounts for about 25% of the total area of all federal protected areas.

Environment and Climate Change Canada proposes to add two new national wildlife areas over the next two years. We anticipate establishing Scott Islands marine national wildlife area in 2017. The Scott Islands and surrounding waters together make up one of the most productive and biologically diverse marine ecosystems, particularly for seabirds, on the Pacific coast. The ocean waters provide a key foraging area for birds that nest on the islands, and also attract five million to 10 million migratory birds annually as they travel vast distances across the Pacific to feed, including some species that have been identified as being globally at risk. It contains important habitat for several marine mammal species as well. This will be the first marine national wildlife area in Canada. The Scott Islands marine national wildlife area will increase marine protection in Canada by 0.22%.

The second proposed area for establishment in 2017 is the Edéhzhíe national wildlife area in the Northwest Territories. This unique ecosystem is located west of Yellowknife, and is also known as the Horn Plateau. The richness and diversity of the Edéhzhíe has made this area a cultural and spiritual gathering place for the Dehcho and the Tlicho people. The establishment of the Edéhzhíe national wildlife area will protect 15,000 square kilometres of habitat for boreal caribou, migratory birds, and other wildlife.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'll just let you know that you have one minute left in the ten-minute presentation.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Thank you very much. It is a bit of an overview for the rest of them.

I know that my colleagues from DFO and Parks Canada would join me in emphasizing the importance of involvement by indigenous governments and communities that have been integral to the establishment and management of many protected areas. In the case of Environment and Climate Change Canada, we've been working with various indigenous communities through the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy to establish new protected areas such as the Edéhzhíe National Wildlife Area.

Another example of the importance of indigenous community participation is in Nunavut where, under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Inuit impact and benefit agreements have been concluded for the conservation areas in the Nunavut settlement area. In 2008, working with NTI and the regional Inuit associations, we concluded an umbrella agreement know as the IIBA, for five national wildlife areas and eight migratory bird sanctuaries. This IIBA resulted directly in the establishment of three new national wildlife areas. In addition, the IIBA has provided funding over seven years for environmentally sustainable tourism, employment, co-management and other opportunities for Inuit in the affected communities. I am very pleased to report that we recently completed negotiations with our Inuit partners on a renewed IIBA.

Beyond Environment and Climate Change Canada's formal protected areas program, the department has, for many years, played a leading or contributing role for various programs and initiatives that are protecting lands and waters that count toward the targets. For instance, we play a national leadership role in working in partnership with government and non-government organizations through our stewardship programs to provide financial assistance or tax incentives to encourage Canadians to conserve land.

I'll just highlight a few quickly. Through our financial assistance and tax incentive initiatives, many non-government organizations make significant contributions to securing ecologically sensitive areas on private lands. Organizations such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada are co-operating with us and other partners to conserve important habitat through initiatives like the natural areas conservation program, which has conserved nearly 400,000 hectares, and the tax incentive program, the ecological gifts program, which has protected 175,000 hectares of ecologically sensitive land.

Our work with the U.S., provinces, territories and conservation non-profits under the North American waterfowl management plan has protected eight million hectares of wetlands since 1986. This is a very active program that continues to protect those areas.

In conclusion, I hope I've been able to provide you with some useful information for your study about protected areas, the rationale for them, and how we're working collaboratively with partners to achieve Canada's 2020 conservation targets of 17% and 10%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for that detailed overview.

We now have Kevin Stringer of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much.

My name is Kevin Stringer. I'm the assistant deputy minister for Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans.

Thank you very much for the invitation today.

You've heard from my Environment and Climate Change colleague on the broader approach to protection, as well as on the work that department is doing. My focus will be on the marine environment and the work that DFO is doing with colleagues here, but also with provinces, territories, etc.

For today, we would like to outline the government's efforts to meet its marine conservation objectives and enhance the federal network of marine protected areas.

We will also discuss our important partnerships with other federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous groups and NGOs.

I have a few comments about why we believe this work is so important. It's a bit repetitive, but it really is not just about meeting the targets, it's about the importance of this work.

Marine ecosystems are essential to climate regulation through absorption of heat and greenhouse gases. They provide nutritious food and the foundation for managing sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; support the seafood industries and many other economic maritime sectors; provide habitat needed to support species population growth and recovery, including for species at risk; and provide shelter for species from predators and stresses caused by fisheries gear.

Many species provide vital ecosystem services, for example sponges filter nutrients from water, which is needed for coral reef abundance. Plankton produce much of the world's oxygen, another ecosystem service. Protecting coastal areas helps to buffer coastal lands from storm surges and floods, as well as prevent erosion and stabilize shorelines. I've got more, but there all of those things, and much more. Our oceans need protection, and we're committed to do it.

As you know, my minister has in his mandate to work with his colleagues here at the table and others to achieve 5% protection by 2017 and 10% by 2020. This is a fairly exciting target for our department and for all of us, as was said. So far, after 20 years with the Oceans Act, we've achieved almost, but not quite, 1%. we aim to be at 5% by next year and 10% by 2020.

We do have a number of tools. We have Oceans Act MPAs, where the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may establish MPAs, marine protected areas, through regulations created under the Oceans Act. They have specific purposes to protect and conserve fisheries resources and their habitats, including marine mammals, endangered or threatened marine species, unique habitats, and marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity, etc. There are eight in place today.

Then there are NMCAs. Parks Canada can establish national marine conservation areas to protect and conserve a representative sampling of Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage and provide opportunities for public education and enjoyment.

There are also the NWAs. Environment and Climate Change Canada may establish marine national wildlife areas, which really speak mostly to migratory birds and endangered species for protection.

So different purposes, different tools, but the same overall objective in terms of protection.

Provinces also have responsibilities. They protect areas as well, as do indigenous groups.

Working on this really is an all-in effort. We have worked with many, but in addition to all of those tools we also have what are called other effective area-based conservation measures, fisheries closures, and other elements as well, and I'd be happy to talk about that later.

We have all, across our departments, enacted individual MPAs and various protections, and we will continue to do so. We will do them bigger, faster, and more substantive. At the same time, our focus more and more is on networks, on integrating the protection. An MPA network, which we're seeking to establish in the 13 bioregions across the oceans, including the Great Lakes, is a collection of individual MPAs and other conservation measures designed to work together to meet conservation objectives more effectively and comprehensively than just individual sites could achieve independently, and to use a range of tools, including all those that are effective, integrated, and complementary.

Moving forward on this will take an all-in process, both in meeting our targets and moving forward on networks. We can't get to our targets without active partnerships with federal government departments, with provinces, territories, indigenous groups, and working with environmental groups that have been passionate, driving us, and been very effective partners, particularly with our new mandate.

We're pleased to see that your study may include examination of the potential for indigenous conservation initiatives. It's an important measure for us, working with indigenous groups, respecting aboriginal rights, and having indigenous people as partners. With respect to provinces and territories, we have re-established our oceans task group, working with us on the targets and on the network work.

Finally, I do want to say we were very pleased to see that the oceans program and our 5% and 10% objectives received financial support in the budget, $81.3 million over five years starting in 2016 and 2017. This will help us as we move forward.

It will be an all-in effort, with all players at the table. It is a unique challenge, but a wonderful opportunity to try to meet those targets, to build the networks, and to contribute to the objectives that I outlined earlier.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. That was excellent.

Now we're going to listen to Kevin McNamee from Parks Canada.

[Kevin McNamee, Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair and honourable members.

With me today is Nadine Crookes, our newly appointed director for natural resource conservation and the former director of our aboriginal affairs secretariat.

In my remarks I will not be repeating some of the information provided to the committee through our questions and answers.

Parks Canada is the federal agency charged with managing a network of 46 national parks, four national marine conservation areas, which I will refer to as NMCAs, 168 national historic sites, and the Rouge National Urban Park. All told, this network protects almost 350,000 square kilometres of Canada's lands and waters, a size equivalent to one-third of Ontario.

Established in 1911, Parks Canada is the world's oldest national park service. In 1998, Parks Canada was established as a separate agency by Parliament to ensure that Canada's national parks, national marine conservation areas and related heritage areas are protected and presented by Parks Canada and for this and future generations.

In passing the Parks Canada Agency Act, Parliament declared it in the national interest for Parks Canada to protect nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, include representative examples of Canada's land and marine regions in the system of national parks and NMCAs, maintain or restore the ecological integrity of national parks, ensure the ecologically sustainable use of NMCAs, and present that heritage through interpretive and educational programs for public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment, thereby enhancing pride, encouraging stewardship, and giving expression to our identity as Canadians.

Protected from industrial development, national parks and NMCAs conserve ecosystem functions and wildlife habitat, welcome visitors, provide iconic visitor experiences, encourage research, protect traditional lands of importance to indigenous people, and undertake and inspire conservation actions beyond their boundaries. In short, we do not just establish new parks and NMCAs and then throw away the key. As Parliament has directed through the Canada National Parks Act since 1930, and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act since 2002, our mandate is both to protect and ensure that visitors use, benefit, and enjoy these special places, leaving them unimpaired for future generations.

I'm now going to turn to systems expansion. The goal of the national park and NMCAs system is to protect representative areas. To date, 30 of 39 terrestrial regions are represented by one or more national parks and five of 29 marine regions by four NMCAs. In setting priorities for new parks and NMCAs, Parks Canada's focus is on candidate sites located in unrepresented natural regions. For example, budget 2016 provided funding to establish the proposed Thaidene Nëné national park reserve in the Northwest Territories. Thaidene Nëné, which means land of the ancestors in the Chipewyan language, and which you will hear more about on Thursday, features incredible landscapes with spectacular rivers, secluded bays, and inspiring scenery. Not only will this park protect parts of the annual ranges of all three barren ground caribou herds that range in this region, it will ensure that the cultural connection of indigenous people to this place will be maintained for generations to come.

Budget 2016 also funds the establishment of an NMCA in Nunavut's Lancaster Sound to protect a seascape recognized internationally as one of the most significant ecological areas in the world. It is the ecological engine of the entire eastern Canadian Arctic marine ecosystem. A traditional knowledge study undertaken with local communities reinforces the importance of this area to Inuit and their culture, and is a critical source of country foods for their communities. Funding will also allow us to continue work on a new national park in the Manitoba Lowlands and proposed NMCAs in the southern Strait of Georgia and les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We will also look to launch some new initiatives in the future.

Creating new national parks and NMCAs is about developing relationships and trust with other governments, indigenous people, local communities, and stakeholders. The work involved in establishing new sites includes undertaking ecological traditional knowledge and socio-economic studies; consulting stakeholders, communities, landowners, and the public; engaging and consulting indigenous people; defining boundaries; and negotiating agreements with provincial and territorial governments.

A critical part of our establishment process is the level of engagement with indigenous people. Of the lands and waters in Parks Canada's care, three-quarters are managed with the support of first nations, Inuit, and Métis. We have 30 co-operative management arrangements whereby we work collaboratively with indigenous people. More recently, new national parks have been established because indigenous peoples have agreed to set aside lands they use in such parks. For example, the Labrador Inuit agreed through their land claim to set aside one-third of their homeland within the Torngat Mountains National Park as a gift to Canada.

The use of co-operative management boards with indigenous members to manage national parks is a meaningful way for indigenous peoples to continue stewardship, in partnership with Parks Canada, over their traditionally used land on their own terms, including directing how we use traditional knowledge to inform decisions.

All told, Parks Canada works with more than 300 indigenous communities. These strong local relationships with indigenous people are essential to delivering our mandate, and they contribute to the process of reconciliation between Canada and indigenous people. These relationships are founded on a shared vision that protecting land and waters is essential to the well-being of us all.

The conservation and restoration of ecological integrity in national parks is Parks Canada's first priority. Our conservation and restoration program involves currently 33 projects across 27 sites and an investment of $84 million over five years, the largest in the agency's history.

For example, prescribed burns provide an important tool in our work to restore the ecological integrity of park ecosystems. The objective of one prescribed burn in Kootenay National Park is the restoration of important Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat, returning closed forest to what was historically open montane habitat.

Another project, in the Gulf Islands National Park, is restoring clam garden eco-cultural landscapes using traditional and scientific knowledge. Park staff are working with Coast Salish first nations to rebuild the first clam gardens in the Pacific Northwest. The gardens are improving the state of the park reserve's intertidal ecosystem, restoring an ancient seafood farm, and connecting indigenous youth with their cultural history.

Parks Canada has also invested significantly in recovery efforts for several species at risk across Canada. Successes include the restoration of savannah habitat in Point Pelee National Park in Ontario, required by several species at risk, including many Carolinian forest species.

With respect to climate change, according to scientists the global network of protected areas is already helping the world to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Maintaining large, healthy ecosystems within protected areas helps to increase their resilience against climate change and to reduce impacts from extreme weather events. Establishing a larger network of well-managed protected areas in national parks and locating new NMCAs adjacent to existing national parks will result in more resilient ecosystems that can buffer climate change impacts, provide habitat for native species over a long period, and continue to evolve and adapt to changing climatic conditions.

With respect to inspiring a new generation, while nature has shaped this country's heritage, over the last decade many have expressed growing concern over our society's disconnection from nature. The barriers to nature include growing urbanization, attraction to technology, and our indoor, sedentary lifestyle. Evidence is mounting that this loss of connection to nature is impacting our physical and mental well-being and changing attitudes and ethics vis-à-vis conservation.

National parks and other protected areas with new visitor experience programs and outreach programs are well positioned to find novel ways to ingrain the importance of connecting people and nature across all sectors of society in order to maintain a culture of conservation among a new generation.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, from Parks Canada's perspective the key attributes to success in establishing and managing protected areas are political leadership and commitment; public and stakeholder support; funding; engagement, collaboration, and ongoing consultation with indigenous peoples in communities while respecting modern and historical treaties—and I stress ongoing consultation, not just doing it once—utilizing science and traditional knowledge to inform decisions; and finally, recognizing that the work we undertake is to contribute to the overall conservation and health of our planet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

I apologize for rushing people along with their presentations. It's incredibly important information that you're sharing with us. It's just unfortunate that we are so limited in our time to hear you.

The next person up will be Allan MacDonald.

[Allan MacDonald, Director General, Implementation Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thanks very much, Chair and honourable members, and thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

I want to thank my colleagues for their presentations.

My remarks today, I think, are going to be more contextual, reflecting broader relationship issues and the variety of land management regimes we have with indigenous people across the country, whether it's on reserve, under self-government or claims, or in the north.

I want to acknowledge and introduce my colleagues, Mark Hopkins from Northern Affairs, and Susan Waters from lands and economic development.

I'll start by saying that indigenous peoples' relationships to Canada's lands, waters, and natural resources are integral to their cultures and livelihoods. This relationship varies with the governance and geographic landscape across the nation. In the south, for example, indigenous lands are largely first nations reserve lands that are federal lands under federal jurisdiction.

The northern context is very different. Lands are mostly managed through modern treaty agreements in the territories, and the north is a key component of our Canadian identity, in part because of its uniqueness. It makes up 40% of Canada's land mass and two-thirds of our coastline, and is home to unique species, significant non-renewable resources, an extreme Arctic climate, limited infrastructure, and vast topography. It is within this context that Canada applies its long-standing commitment to the protection of the northern environment and to the sustainable development of its resources for the benefit of Arctic residents and all Canadians, both now and in the future.

Moving forward on conservation matters, north or south, indigenous peoples will need to be meaningfully consulted and involved in a manner that respects aboriginal treaty rights, seeks to balance indigenous interests with other societal interests, and leverages opportunities to establish a meaningful dialogue with indigenous groups in support of building relationships.

I just want to talk a little about first nations reserves. More than 3.5 million hectares of land in Canada are first nations reserve lands, which continue to grow as land is added to fulfill legal obligations from historic treaties and specific claims, and for community growth and economic development. The majority of first nations reserve land is governed under the Indian Act, which provides authority for environment and land management, including by-law-making authority. While the minister has jurisdiction and responsibility over the land, the control and use of the land rests with the first nations.

That changes under self-government. Self-government allows indigenous groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over community decision-making. Comprehensive self-government agreements address the structure and accountability of indigenous governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements, and responsibilities for providing programs and services and to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to promote such issues as environmental protection and to improve social conditions.

Sectoral self-government agreements, such as under the First Nations Land Management Act, provide signatory first nations the authority to make laws in relation to reserve lands, resources, and the environment. The act specifically allows first nations to opt out of the Indian Act provisions related to land management.

On first nations reserves, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada works with first nations communities on land protection measures through a combination of programs, policies, and partnerships with other departments. Our department and first nations communities support environmental conservation and protection through the environmental review process, where the department and first nations assess projects taking place on reserve to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur, and to incorporate environmental factors into decision-making.

Our department and first nations communities also have legal obligations pertaining to environmental conservation and protection through a number of pieces of federal environmental legislation. However, provincial laws that manage environmental risk do not apply on reserve land.

Moving on to comprehensive land claims and modern treaties, currently there are 28 constitutionally protected modern treaties in effect across Canada, covering 40% of the nation's land mass, including most of the north. Modern treaties put in place concrete measures to achieve reconciliation, to promote strong and sustainable indigenous communities, and to establish intergovernmental relationships between the treaty partners. Many modern treaties also include self-government arrangements.

Treaties clarify rights and obligations around the ownership and management of lands and resources, and promote self-determination and joint decision-making. Importantly, treaties transfer ownership of lands and resources to indigenous signatories. Treaty holders have the power to make and enact laws on the use, management, and conservation of the signatory-owned lands and resources, and signatories often have right-of-access to crown lands for harvesting and traditional use, and the right to be involved in resource management decision-making in areas where the crown has the primary responsibility.

Land use planning is particularly relevant in this area. The land use planning process is a major component of the land or resource management landscape under modern treaties, especially in northern territories. Northern treaties mandate that the treaty partners collaborate to develop regional land use plans laying out how lands and resources are to be used, while balancing the interests of the respective parties in areas like environmental protection, social and cultural protection and promotion, and economic development.

The northern treaties put in place independent land use planning boards, or councils, that are mandated to lead the land use planning process. Some plans are currently in place, for example, in the Northern Yukon and in the Sahtu and Gwich'in treaty settlement areas in the Northwest Territories. Modern treaties have specific provisions and obligations relating to federal conservation measures, and they are often the basis for the creation and management of national parks and protected areas.

The Government of Canada is legally obligated to consult with its indigenous treaty partners on the establishment of conservation or protected areas in proximity to a treaty. The treaties often require Canada to enter into it with its treaty partners and with the intent of putting impacts and benefits agreements in place, as my colleague from Environment mentioned, to mitigate potential impacts on the rights of treaty holders and to leverage opportunities for economic development and co-management in treaty communities.

Modern treaties also put in place unique governance arrangements through institutions of public government, and they are mandated to coordinate decision-making related to lands and resources in treaty settlement areas.

On the ground, modern treaties have led to strong co-management relationships between Canada and its indigenous treaty partners and leveraged socio-economic benefits for communities. Plans can support the integration of first nations and Inuit culture and heritage into parks programming, protect resources of natural and cultural significance to the treaty signatories, and promote training, employment and economic opportunities for treaty beneficiaries.

In conclusion, and to echo all of my federal colleagues so far, I think it would be integral to address how indigenous communities and governments can and should contribute to how Canada plans to move forward to meets its conservation goals. Existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and the unique interests and priorities of indigenous Canadians, must inform this important work.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and we welcome any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much to all of you for your excellent overview and identification of the issues involved.

We're going to turn it over to questioning now, and the first up is Mr. Eglinski. Thank you.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all the presenters today, and thank you for the work you're doing to conserve our areas in Canada.

My question will go to Sue Milburn-Hopwood. In looking at the statements you made regarding the Aichi targets, we have a lot of work to do. I notice you talked a lot about development through and engagement with provinces, territories, national indigenous organizations, non-government organizations, and others. I've travelled extensively through western Canada and been very aware of different provincial programs, such as the Willmore Wilderness Park in Alberta, the Tweedsmuir Park in British Columbia, the Nechako wilderness area by northwestern British Columbia, and many others. Thank you very much for mentioning the Horn Plateau, which you are now looking at as an area. I've flown over that many times, and it is one of the great beautiful spots of Canada. Most people don't get to see it. I've seen it many times. Thank you.

My concern is when we're looking at these areas, I wonder if you could explain—in relationship to the provinces, the territories, and even dropping down into some municipalities that have protected areas—are these included in our total numbers you look at in Canada and represent? Can you tell me the criteria for how you make one area acceptable and another area not acceptable?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

I'll give an overview, and then I'll ask Bob to get into some of the specifics.

There is an IUCN classification system that we use to classify them. We are in the process of counting the various types of protected areas, and some are more protected than others. Yes, we put this all together in a big database and have good accounting. In some of the areas, particularly some of the private protected areas, we've spent the last couple of years counting them. They make up less than the larger government tracts of land, but still they're making progress. They need to be recognized as protected areas, so we have spent some time to make sure we have all of the numbers. I don't know the specifics of the particular protected areas you've mentioned, but much of the effort under way is not just with the federal government, it's also provincial and territorial efforts.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I guess my concern is whether there is some way to look at those targeted numbers and whether you could bring those targeted numbers back to us. I'm concerned that a lot of the provinces and even down to municipalities are doing great work in the same areas that we are working on federally. Should we not be recognizing a lot of these if they fit within the guidelines that you are talking about?

What I'm concerned about is whether as federal groups we are looking at these other programs to see if they fit within those. If they are fitting in—and there are some enormously large tracts of land out there set up by the provinces—are we including them in our numbers?

I think if we are not, we are not doing fair justice to Canadians in other parts of the country. I was wondering if those numbers could be made available or whether you have looked at that.

[Robert McLean, Director General, Assessment and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

The quick answer is yes. Absolutely, the intent is to report not only on federal, provincial, and territorial government protected areas, but also to capture in our database, which we're building right now, those other areas to which you refer, whether they are indigenous protected areas, whether they are municipal and even including areas that have been protected through programs that Sue mentioned during her presentation. Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada are acquiring and protecting lands. They have many tens of thousands of hectares now. Those areas would be captured in the national reporting that we would undertake.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I have a quick question. I believe recently we have started to look at some of our large military bases and reserve areas. Are we going to continue looking at them? I'm thinking more now of say the Cold Lake military area, which encompasses a great part of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Are we looking at those and possibly tying them in?

[Robert McLean]

The quick answer is yes. Again, we would very much like to capture in the national tracking and reporting areas that really deliver those protected area and biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Sue mentioned the IUCN criteria. There are six criteria there. Presenters also referred to other affected area-based conservation measures.

We think there's opportunity to identify even more areas than we have contemplated to date in the national reporting that we do. Those could include areas managed by others, such as the Department of National Defence. I'll not comment specifically on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.

I would comment on Suffield. I would be remiss if I didn't talk about Canadian Forces Base Suffield, which is a national wildlife area managed by the Minister of National Defence under Environment and Climate Change Canada legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry to cut you off. We started late and if we have a full round, we're going to run out of time.

I also want to make sure that I introduce those joining us, who are not normally at the table. Paul Lefebvre and Roger Cuzner are on the Liberal side, and Wayne Stetski is on the NDP side. I want to make sure people are aware that you're here.

We now have questioning from Mr. Amos. Thank you.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our witnesses.

This is an issue that I know is near and dear to the hearts of everyone in this room, and I don't think for a moment that this should be considered a partisan issue. If anything, this is one of the very few issues in Canada on which we can all say that we agree and we want to do better.

That's the starting point for my comments. In fact, the reason I am sitting here today, and what motivated me to become an environmental lawyer, is my father, who worked for many years at Parks Canada. I really appreciate all the civil servants who are here and who have a similar level of dedication towards conserving our natural areas. To start, I take that as a given.

When I ask questions, I'll be looking for very brief responses. In particular, I would really appreciate undertakings to provide written additional responses. I don't have enough time to get through all the issues I want to get through, and you won't have enough time to answer, so I would really appreciate it if you just simply say that you will provide further responses in writing at a later date.

My first question goes to the 2020 Aichi targets of 17% on the land and 10% on the ocean, which are meant to be a step towards the long-term goal of “living in harmony with nature”. I think we can agree that they're laudable targets. Our government committed to achieving them, but this isn't an end point. This is just a milestone on the way to something much greater. I liken it to trying to get to the moon. We're trying to achieve something much greater.

In fact, last night there was a talk hosted by CPAWS, where they spoke about E. O. Wilson, the pre-eminent American scientist who coined the term “biodiversity” and who is making the case that we need to protect half of the earth, so 17% is clearly just along the way here. He made a statement on similar lines in the joint U.S.-Canada statement at the state dinner and committed to looking substantially beyond the 17% and 10% targets.

My question is, what is being done in each of your departments to get us there, to get us beyond 17% and 10%? What is the plan? I'd appreciate specifically comments from Parks Canada on this orally, but if I could have a written response on that, it would be very helpful.

[Kevin McNamee]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Amos. In fact, it was your father who convinced me to join Parks Canada, and I now sit in the chair he used to occupy.

In terms of percentages, the national parks system and the national marine conservation area system, if they are to be completed, will substantially surpass.... Certainly, they will make a significant contribution to those targets, so those systems plans are designed to go beyond 2020. If anything, at some point we're going to have to start to look at our national park system plan to update it, but those are our long-term plans.

In addition, Mark Hopkins is here, and if I may answer the question in terms of a new conservation goal for the Arctic, which the president and the Prime Minister challenged each country to come up with, we're looking at what would be an appropriate consultation process that would engage territorial governments, indigenous peoples, etc. That's the kind of work we're looking at, and we can follow up with further details.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd like to follow up on that and go to ecological integrity, which I think is core legislatively but also scientifically to all of what we're trying to achieve with these targets. My understanding is that the percentage of the budget of Parks Canada that is spent towards conservation and the restoration of ecological integrity is around 7%. Is that an accurate figure? If so, why is it so low?