Environment Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Dave Porter, Senior Advisor, Indigenous Leadership Initiative of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign]

Madam Chair, I think Valerie has done a great job of laying out what we want to talk to the committee about here today; and in the interests of having greater engagement with members of the committee, I'll defer to our next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Latourelle.

[Alan Latourelle, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin people for allowing us to conduct business on their traditional territory.

It is an honour for me to share with the committee my personal views, based on several years of experience, on a subject that I am very passionate about, Canada's protected areas.

Before I go to my notes, I will just tell you that those notes were prepared without discussions with other members today, but that, as you will see, there are a lot of similarities in the key points that I would like to make.

As someone who has been involved in the international protected areas community for close to 20 years, I will share with the committee today my thoughts on how, as a country, we can build on our strengths to achieve new heights, not only in conservation, but also in healing our relationship with Canada's indigenous people.

My presentation will focus on four key points: first, the need to celebrate and communicate Canada's current international leadership in protected areas management; second, the need to have a clear and agreed-upon baseline of our current conservation results that is consistent with our COP 10 commitment; third, what we need to do to develop a national plan to demonstrate continued international leadership; and fourth, some suggestions on how to achieve our targets, and innovative approaches that you may want to consider.

First, in terms of where we are as a country internationally, the last 15 years have seen one of the most significant national park expansion programs in the history of our country, and this was achieved with the full involvement of indigenous peoples, demonstrating international leadership. As mentioned by a previous witness, Parks Canada is implementing the largest ecological restoration program in its history. For example, World Wildlife Fund International has recognized global leadership actions such as the reintroduction of bison and black-footed ferret in Grasslands National Park.

Furthermore, in 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, released new guidelines on ecological restoration for protected areas that were modelled on Canada's own national approach to ecological restoration. Canada is also the only country whose Parliament is provided with a comprehensive science-based assessment of the state of its national parks.

Canada is demonstrating global leadership by implementing programs to inspire new generations to connect with nature, thereby developing a strong conservation ethic in future leaders. Canada has also demonstrated global leadership by implementing consistently across its system of national parks a consultative and co-operative model that ensures indigenous peoples have an effective voice in the management of protected areas.

Finally, several provincial governments, indigenous communities, and organizations such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada have made bold commitments or taken bold actions related to new protected areas.

These are only a few examples of our country's international leadership. I think it is important because, as we look at the future, we really need to build on the strengths of the past and the significant leadership that Canada has demonstrated internationally on protected areas management, and be proud of that.

As we prepare to celebrate the 150th anniversary of our nation, we need to stand tall and proud and celebrate the exceptional contributions we have made to conservation internationally, while charting a bold and inspiring path for the future.

The first step, from my perspective, is to have a clear and agreed-upon baseline of our current conservation results that is consistent with the COP 10 commitment, as has also been mentioned by previous witnesses. As stated in a 2014 United Nations Environment Programme report, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 aspires to a global conservation system that is built not only from protected areas managed or governed by governments, but also from, and I quote, “other effective area-based conservation measures”. It further states that “the extent of 'other' areas, their distribution and the degree to which they complement the global system of protected areas are all uncertain, and until this information is available, complete progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 cannot be accurately determined.”

I would suggest that what this means within a Canadian context is that the federal, provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments need to agree on a common definition and criteria of “other areas” that should be included in our national report, and communicate that very broadly to allow sufficient time for private, not-for-profit, and indigenous communities to submit their data for reporting purposes. This may sound trivial, but it is critical, from my perspective, in order to ensure that indigenous-controlled lands and other landowners receive the recognition that they deserve in Canada's future reports.

Secondly, it needs to be acknowledged that the vast majority of the new land-based protected areas that need to established to meet our objectives are provincially or territorially owned crown lands that are the traditional territory of indigenous peoples. Therefore, for us to meet our long-term objectives and the targets, any national plan will only be successful if there is concrete political commitment of these landowners and federal leadership.

In essence, to achieve Target 11 will require a strong political push federally and provincially.

Thirdly, if Canada is to retain its international leadership role, which I mentioned previously, it cannot just meet the top 10 targets. I'm sure that I may be stressing out my former colleagues here today, but we have been what I would call an A student in the international protected areas communities for the past century and we should not be satisfied with a D minus passing grade in 2020 by simply meeting the 17% and 10% targets.

If you equate that with the Olympics, on the protected areas we've been as a country on the podium for the last 100 years. We want to stay on the podium for the next 100 years. We have in the past showed and we must continue to show the world what can be accomplished when a country takes bold action to protect a significant part of its territory for future generations.

To achieve this objective I would suggest that first we aim for a 20% to 25% land-based protection by 2020 and 12% to 15% of marine protection; that a national plan, which has been mentioned previously by several other witnesses, be developed in 2016 and endorsed by ministers of all jurisdictions, with key measurable milestones that are reported publicly annually in order to track progress but more importantly to celebrate success.

The 20% to 25% is achievable if we account for the indigenous-controlled lands and other lands that are currently not accounted for in the reports I've seen so far.

I would suggest also that the plan include proposed new government-managed protected areas. The plan should include private and not-for profit conservation lands expansion and lands identified as of cultural and natural significance to indigenous communities as part of their land use plans, especially in northern Canada.

As a practical example, I'll use the land claim agreement with the Labrador Inuit Association. There is a significant component of land in Labrador that is Inuit-controlled lands. We should acknowledge the leadership of the Inuit people and represent that in our reports internationally.

Significant and critical funding has been identified in the 2016 federal budget to support the expansion of the system of protected areas; however, meeting the objective I proposed earlier will be challenging and will require a real national effort. My humble suggestions are that the federal government first needs to look at streamlining the protected areas establishment process. I'll just give you a few examples.

The federal mineral and energy resource assessment policy needs to be modified to reflect territorial devolution agreements. I'm not sure whether that has been done or not. I just looked at the web, and it's still on the website, so this may or may not be appropriate as an example, but it's one approach, and indigenous traditional knowledge could support such a program.

In closing I want to thank the committee for inviting me. The work that you do is important and will shape the future of protected areas in Canada and our relationship with indigenous peoples for the next century by ensuring that the seascapes and landscapes that define our nation are protected forever, so that future generations can experience the natural and indigenous diversity of our great country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you all very much.

I'm going to open the floor to questions, and we'll start with Mr. Aldag.

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

I want to thank the panellists for coming today.

For a brief context, I was with Parks Canada for over 30 years.

I want to commend Mr. Latourelle for the leadership he's shown, the leadership we continue seeing, and—as I meet with government officials—the leadership that Parks Canada is recognized for in its relationships with indigenous communities. I know that was very much under your leadership, and thank you for that.

For Steven, it's interesting. I worked in Wood Buffalo National Park in the 1980s. I was a resident of Fort Smith for about six years. At that point, the whole dream of Thaidene Nëné was the beginning of an idea, and I know it's taken 30 years. My career and my life were spent watching the relationship with that community. It's exciting for me hear your comments that things are moving along there. I commend the community for its insight and vision, and the care that has been taken over that time to get to this point in the creation of that space. It is an honour to hear you speak today. Thank you for the value and for your comments.

With the work I've done with Parks Canada, I've travelled through Gwaii Haanas and I've seen the Haida watchmen program. I was active for a year as superintendent at Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, and I saw the great programs through the guardian programs there. I commend you for the work you're doing, and I would love to see those types of programs growing across the country in many different protected areas. It is a wonderful afternoon to be spending with you, so thank you.

With those comments, I would like to start briefly with Alan, and then I'm going to move to Steven.

I am curious. You have given us some great ideas about protected areas. Once we complete the systems plan—and I have this dream that maybe we could get there by 2020, although I recognize that relationships with our partners, particularly indigenous communities, take time and in many cases it's decades—do you have any thoughts on the next phase of what the park system may look like once you reach completion of the existing 1970s plan? Do you have any thoughts on where that could go?

[Alan Latourelle]

I think, as has been mentioned previously, that conservation science has evolved quite significantly since the plan. My advice to the committee would be to keep going on the plan, get it done, and then let's look at what's the next phase.

That's why I'm suggesting an indigenous cultural lands program. I think there's a significant amount of land, probably bigger than the national parks system, of indigenous-controlled lands through land claim agreements and other mechanisms. I don't think they're getting the recognition they deserve, and I think they need the support to manage those lands and ensure the long-term survival of cultures. For the next step, my advice would be more on the indigenous cultural lands types of program.

I think the other aspect is that, as a country, we need to look at urban areas. There's huge urban sprawl. We have the Rouge National Urban Park, and I think there is a long-term need for an urban national park system across Canada.

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

Thank you. That's a nice transition to Steven.

I want to ask if you could share what you would find to be best practices as you've gone through this process for park establishment and dealing with government.

You touched on some of it in your comments, but I am wondering if you have advice for us about processes and approaches that you would like to see supported, which other indigenous communities could benefit from, or if there are pitfalls or things we should avoid as we work with communities on—moving toward what Mr. Latourelle is talking about—indigenous cultural lands program or other protected areas. What works for Thaidene Nëné, and what didn't work that we should be aware of? Any thoughts you could offer would be appreciated.

[Chief Steven Nitah]

I can certainly try to answer some of those questions.

If you look at Thaidene Nëné, it has a long history for sure. The interest of Canada in creating a national park in that area was first expressed back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, but at that point in time, just as with the creation of particular areas like Wood Buffalo National Park, the laws of the country were not conducive for indigenous governments agreeing to national parks, including the use on that proposed Lutsel K'e national park at that time. Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 gave us some comfort to move forward and explore the possibility of entering into a relationship with Canada through Parks Canada.

Making resources available to indigenous governments and communities to go and explore what's out there and best practices is one key investment that Canada can make, but I also have to acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Latourelle on the Thaidene Nëné file. It takes leadership from the Government of Canada to give comfort to aboriginal governments to move forward together.

Thaidene Nëné is very similar to Gwaii Haanas. We built Thaidene Nëné on Gwaii Haanas, which is the closest thing in Canada to a government-to-government relationship in the management and operations of that protected area. It took a little while to get the Government of Canada back to that state of mind. I think what took the longest time was bringing Canada to that state of mind where we could work together from a government-to-government perspective. That's one aspect.

The other very important aspect is that we have been able to have our own funds that we have control over. That's where the trust fund comes in. The trust fund gives comfort to Lutsel K'e to get into a government-to-government relationship with Canada wherein we have our own financial resources to contribute to the operations and management of Thaidene Nëné and not depend on the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories on an annual basis to provide such resources. We have seen in the past where, if the crown has controlled the dollars, it eventually takes over using that control.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry that we have to end that because, obviously, there are a lot more questions to be asked and a lot of information to share with us.

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'd like to welcome our three presenters, especially the Lutsel K'e Dene First Nations.

Steven, thank you for coming.

I'd also like to thank the indigenous leadership program. Valerie and Alan, thank you. Valerie and Alan, thank you.

I have questions for Steven and Alan. I will start with Alan. I'd like you to be fairly quick, because I think I want to get a little bit more out of Steven than yourself.

I noted that you spoke very favourably of what Canada has done over the last number of years with significant increases in parks, the different programs, and the different developments for our national parks. In my riding of Yellowhead, I encompass all of Jasper National Park; I encompass half of Banff National Park. I have Willmore Wilderness Park and I'm very familiar with the Muskwa-Kechika area in northern British Columbia, having spent time in all of those areas.

I noticed, when I was reading CPAWS' handout and listening to you, that there seems to be quite a disconnect in ideas and thoughts. I believe that I saw from you that there was a need for us to be progressive with our national parks but to be very careful to protect things. I wonder if I can just get a comment on that.

[Alan Latourelle]

I think we have to go back to the dedication clause of national parks. They're dedicated to the people of Canada for their use, enjoyment, and education but in a way that leaves them unimpaired. I think in the Government of Canada that's the responsibility of the minister.

If I go back to the commissioner's report on cultural integrity, that confirms that Parks Canada—again, I'm not giving you inside information, because it's public information—was meeting our obligation under the act. Recreational activities have been and will always been debated. It's going to be a debate 50 years from now. I think the issue for me is that, again, the commissioner reviewed the recreational activities and confirmed that cultural integrity was seriously considered and the first priority in the processes of the agency, so I would recommend that you may want to look at the commissioner's report and the specific section on that.

I think that, in Canada, there are several parks that have no commercial development at all, more than the vast majority of them. I think there are a lot of opportunities for Canadians. Look at northern Canada, for example. There's a unique opportunity for Canadians to experience Inuit culture, so it's not only about nature but also indigenous cultures. I think that's something we should be pursuing as a country.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Steven, thank you for the Thaidene Nëné reserve. I was at your grand opening, and we met last year when you guys were presenting here. What a beautiful part of the world it is, and I want to thank you for what you're doing there.

As Mr. Latourelle mentioned, I think that's the future of Canada, that we take these areas of land and put them under the management of indigenous people.

From having talked with you last year, I know that you've lived there most of your life. With the Aichi program under which Canada needs to reach 17% of its land in parks, we're basically going to have to double what we have now. It's not that far off doubling what we have now, and there is going to be a need to look at the impact that's going to impose on aboriginal communities. I'm looking at the ability of your members to hunt, fish, and trap in areas that we may want to look at for conservation purposes.

I want to get your comments on what level of use you think your people need. Maybe it could be white people trapping in certain areas that we may put into reserve. Do you feel that we can put these conservation areas into place while still being able to have the land utilized by the people, especially indigenous people?

[Chief Steven Nitah]

The indigenous people of this country have rights identified in section 35. In 1982 that was an empty box. It's starting to fill up pretty well. It's been defined. To ask indigenous people to give up those rights for the sake of conservation may not be the best approach, in my opinion. That's not to say that indigenous people are against conservation. We have been conservationist people for eons, but I don't think it's for parks or Parks Canada to make that determination.

The way we are approaching it in the Northwest Territories is that the first nations governments that I represent will work with the Government of Northwest Territories, and they will come up with a political decision on what conservation is going to be and where. If it falls within Thaidene Nëné, then we just have to respect that decision of the political leaders.

That's how I would approach that.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I still want you to answer a little further on that. I believe that we need to give people the opportunity to still use the land, especially indigenous people, and what I was trying to get from you is whether you see a need for us to include that, to give you people the right to still use the land even though we put it into protected areas?

[Chief Steven Nitah]

I guarantee that you're not going to get any support from indigenous governments if you want to create conservation areas by excluding their ability to use that area. From the Thaidene Nëné perspective, it's built right into the agreement. In our discussions with Canada and the Government of Northwest Territories, we've been representing the interests of non-indigenous northerners who have used that area so that they can continue to use that area as long as it's a viable option for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're out of time. That was good questioning.

All right, we're sharing time here, with three minutes for Mr. Amos and three minutes for Mr. Fisher.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all of the witnesses. This is a real privilege to have this opportunity to speak with you. I would also like to acknowledge that we are on Algonquin traditional territory. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons.

I'd like, first, to congratulate Mr. Nitah and his community's inspiring leadership around Thaidene Nëné. I appreciate that this is a project that was the twinkle in the eye of federal civil servants way back when, but it wasn't until there was real community leadership from Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation that we really saw this move forward. That's because, at the end of the day, it has to be the indigenous peoples who drive this forward, who determine that they want this for their own reasons—and in this, I think you are right, that co-management is a huge part of it.

I'd also like to quickly thank you for allowing me to spend time in your homeland. It's because of the nine days of solo canoeing with my wife there that I got her blessing to represent Pontiac and to move forward with the political project, so it's been a really important aspect of my life that I owe to your community.

I'd also like to mention that I really do hope that the Algonquin Nation in western Quebec can learn from the experience of the the Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation, and I hope to be able to build upon that with you going forward.

The idea of uniting around an approach toward reconciliation that is premised on conservation, on cultural preservation, on economic development achieved through co-management of some protected areas is a fabulous idea. I really hope that we can build on that.

Earlier we spoke with our witnesses about the idea of a national conservation body that would bring together federal, provincial, municipal, and indigenous groups to advise on a whole-of-Canada approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have less than one minute, Will.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

How can we get there? I would invite both Ms. Courtois and Steven Nitah to comment orally.

[Chief Steven Nitah]

I hope to see more Canadians visiting Thaidene Nëné and making life-changing decisions while they're visiting our beautiful territory.

I think there's room in this country for such an organization through which we could dialogue on best practices and move forward together. Just recently, a couple of weeks ago, I was in Banff and Canmore, where there was a national parks summit discussion. The parks summit was a gathering of invited representatives who are in the conservation business, whether it's with provincial, territorial, or federal protected areas. That dialogue started there, and I think it's leading towards a conference scheduled for April of next year. Through such a dialogue, a body such as you envision can be created to help guide Canada and all Canadians, including indigenous governments, towards reaching the 25% target, if that's the goal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I apologize for having to keep cutting you off. There's just not enough time for the discussion.

Ms. Fisher, please.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, folks. Time is so tight, and that's a real shame today. There's so much I'd like to ask, but I'm going to take my very short time to ask Mr. Latourelle a question that I wanted to ask of the earlier witnesses.

I'd like to know more about the quality of the land that we're seeking to protect. I get that we have targets, and I get that we have goals and that we want to hit certain percentages, but how do we ensure that we're protecting the proper land, the most diverse land, the best land, rather than just saying “Wow, we hit 17%. Woohoo!”? What is in place?

I'm sorry; this isn't the best question to aim towards you. Again, I wanted to ask it this morning, but what do we have for a safeguard? What do we have for a criteria base so that we can make sure that we get the most diverse, high-quality land for protected areas?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll be done.

[Alan Latourelle]

Madam Chair, I would say that we're fortunate in Canada for two reasons. First, if you look at the national park system plan, it is a science-based plan and approach to identifying candidate areas. Ecological integrity, for example, is one of the key components of identifying the potential lands for national parks as part of the national policy.

I would say that equally important is that as part of the land claim agreement process or land claim negotiation process, indigenous people get to identify the lands that are important for their cultural values. Often, the vast majority of those lands are also the critical lands for conservation purposes.

That's why I was proposing an indigenous cultural lands program, because I think that with the two key components as anchors in Canada, supported equally by land trusts—for example, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which is focusing also on some of the key areas—we will meet not only of the quantity but also the quality of lands that we need to achieve our conservation objective. It will never be perfect, but I think then the next step is really how we link those. How do we ensure the linkage, creating a network, so we don't only have islands of protected areas?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I appreciate your all being here and listening to you this morning. It's very good. I appreciate your information.

Mr. Latourelle, I think you have a lot of experience, so I'll ask you a couple of questions.

We've heard a lot about silos this morning, and differentiated lands and programs. I think part of the challenge we've had is those silos and everybody's specific interests and maybe not having one united interest.

Would you care to comment about the siloing and how you would solve that issue?