Environment Committee on May 5th, 2016

[John Lounds]

Work needs to be done on that. I know that Environment Canada has begun work on how to count and do a better job with this. I think that's part and parcel of what we need in order to move forward.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I would have assumed you would have done that in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Out of respect for Sabine, whose conservation work in marine areas is reaching legendary status, I'd like to invite her to take 45 seconds to complete her thoughts.

[Sabine Jessen]

Thank you very much, Will.

Beyond minimum protection standards, one of the other issues is giving interim protection for areas that are being considered for protection. We need to move from site-by-site MPA establishment to establishing networks of protected areas. One of the things we urgently need is an overall plan—I think everyone has touched on that—that has milestones and timelines, if we're going to finish the big job that everyone has acknowledged we have ahead of us, and that we haven't had in the past.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

My first question will be addressed to Mr. Lounds and Mr. Kendall. I'd like really quick answers, and if you could supplement those with written responses further to this, that would be appreciated.

Collaboration with indigenous peoples is emerging as a crucial area of improvement where our entire country needs to move forward, not just in terms of reconciliation, broadly writ, but in terms of conservation and objectives that we all share in that regard.

What do you think your organizations can do better in terms of indigenous collaboration to increase not only the percentage but the quality of conservation we achieve?

[John Lounds]

Thank you for the question.

People often think that where claims are being resolved, that is where we need to be focusing work, but actually there are many indigenous communities and first nations in southern Canada. Through the work we do, we have many examples of collaborative arrangements with the indigenous communities in those areas. Some help with our stewardship of our properties. Others have been involved and basically helped us conclude conservation arrangements.

As well, I mentioned the Labrador nature atlas, which not only involves the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but also involved those Innu and other communities that are there. In thinking through what needs to be conserved, I think we can bring the conservation science aspects to the table and have that conversation that can be grounded both in western science and traditional knowledge.

We're looking to expand our work in these areas. Can we bring some of the tools that we've learned in terms of conservancy and figure out how that can be helpful going forward? We're looking forward to doing that, and I'd be happy to provide more on that.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Kendall.

[Peter Kendall]

There are two things on that.

First, we fund a lot of the ENGOs' work on building conservation capacity in first nation communities. I think that kind of work is very vital.

On the Earth Rangers side, I think our role can be to help children and families understand better the role of the first nation communities in conservation in this country. To that end, later this fall we are launching a mission for our members to do on indigenous traditional knowledge and the role this plays, and has played, in conservation across Canada. I think we need a lot more of that type of education as well.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to both of you for those answers. My comments with respect to both your answers would be that one of the reasons you're both here is that your organizations are such leaders in the country. Whether it's Earth Rangers' 140,000 children members or whether it's the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that NCC is able to leverage, it's so important that you be part of this movement toward indigenous conservation, so I really do hope we can hear more about what you can do going forward.

I have an idea I'd like to put to the entire group. I'd like to start with Ms. Woodley.

Mr. Lounds mentioned the idea of an expert panel to help guide the federal government as we move forward in a national endeavour for enhanced conservation at multiple levels of government. That would sort of be an expert-driven endeavour. What do you think of the idea, and what has been done in the past that you think needs to be improved with regard to bringing about a national conservation council, a politically led body where all levels of government, including indigenous government, are brought together, maybe not dissimilar to the way the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment come together? This might be more broad.

What do you think of that kind of idea? Would it improve the situation in terms of coordination and collaboration?

[Alison Woodley]

Yes, I think it would. One of the challenges on the terrestrial protected areas front is that terrestrial protected areas are embedded in many different agencies across the country. There is not one federal-provincial-territorial body that is responsible for protected areas on the land in Canada, and that's one of the challenges. Some agencies are within the Canadian Parks Council, some are within environment ministries, and some are within natural resources ministries.

I harken back to 1992 when there was an initiative that brought all ministers responsible for protected areas together, and they jointly signed on to a statement of commitment on protected areas to complete protected areas systems by 2000. It leveraged a huge jump, doubling the size of the protected areas. They didn't get to the final goal exactly, but we need a similar body that involves all agencies. There are some murmurs about that starting, but yes, we do need it at the political level.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

My last question will be very quick. I know my time is running out. This is addressed to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Actually, your time is out. I hate to say that, but it is. My apologies.

We'll go to Mr. Stetski.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me start by thanking all three of the groups for the great work you've done for conservation and protected areas.

My first question will be for CPAWS. As you know, Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The Aichi biodiversity targets require that we protect 10% of our marine territory and 17% of our land by 2020. So far we are at 10% of our land and 1.1% of our marine territory. How confident are you that the measures that the federal government has currently put in place will help reach those targets of 10% and 17%, and what more might the federal government do to help us get there, do you think?

[Alison Woodley]

On the land front, I think this idea of needing a council that really is responsible for this and drives it, led by the federal government, is critical. We are optimistic about the commitments that have been made. There are good commitments in the mandate letters, and there is a great commitment that came out of the U.S.-Canada statement that talks about going substantially beyond the targets. Now we need to put in place a process that brings everyone together to create the road map to get there. That is doable.

I would note that we also have to focus on the long-term goal of conserving nature, with these targets as a step forward. That is always what they've intended to be under the CBD and that's how we need to consider them. There are steps. We need to put the structures in and get the plan in place to get there. At the same time, I agree with Mr. Lounds that we need to be completing the things that are already in play on the ground by all jurisdictions and continue that work.

[Sabine Jessen]

On the marine side, I would echo what Alison has said, except to say that, while we appreciate the funding that was recently allocated for marine protected areas in the budget that will definitely help DFO increase collaboration among federal agencies and bring other levels of government together, there are still some missing pieces. When it comes to Environment Canada and its sites, it doesn't have a plan and it doesn't have new funding in the budget to work on the marine front, nor on the terrestrial front, I believe.

For Parks Canada, I did not hear that there is money for new sites or to explore the establishment of new sites as national marine conservation areas in the testimony that was given earlier this week. I think there are still gaps, and there is still work that needs to be done. Much has been put in place, but more will be needed.

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

I have a question for Mr. Lounds of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which does great work in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. Nancy Newhouse has been very active. She is great. For two years I was manager of the East Kootenay conservation program, which coordinated the purchase of private land for conservation in the East Kootenays. There was a gap between the number of people who wanted to sell their land for conservation and the funding that was available, which might surprise a lot of people.

First, have you seen that gap across Canada, where there's more interest in selling private land for conservation than you have money to purchase it? Second, what more could the federal government do to help with that situation, if that is indeed the case?

[John Lounds]

Really, the only limiting factor on how much more we can do in the private landscape is funding, honestly.

That said, I don't think it's fully government's responsibility to do that. I think the communities need to step up. You need to have buy-in of the communities, like in the Kootenays, where there's actually been a levy undertaken. The communities bought into it big time that conservation needs to happen there. Unless you have that buy-in in the communities, you're not going to see long-term conservation happen. You have to have that buy-in, so that those types of things happen.

But the short answer is simply, yes, funding is the major constraint. That said, you also want to make sure that you're bringing your science to bear, so that you're choosing the most important places to invest. We're constantly sifting through the number of opportunities we have to determine which ones actually meet the highest and most number of criteria that we have for acquisition or securement.

We also try to encourage people to contribute not just through purchase but part-purchase, part-donation, and that's a large part of the work we do as well. We find people willing to give up some value of their property in order to make good things happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have one more minute.

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

I'll go back to CPAWS for a minute. Without putting you on the spot too much, what do you think are the three priority areas that should become new national parks?

[Alison Woodley]

There are a couple in the pipe, so to speak. There's Thaidene Nëné, which is on its way to completion and will be done soon, hopefully. We're involved in that one.

The South Okanagan, of course, is one that has been under way for many years and is such a critically important priority.

Another one that is a really important priority that would be great to get is the Flathead Valley, which is an importation pinch point in the Yellowstone to Yukon area, and an incredibly important biodiversity area.

There are many others. I mean, they're all important, right? We need to do so much more. But those are three that are on my mind at the moment.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Now we turn to Mr. Aldag.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by thanking each of you for being here and for the work that each of your organizations do. You really lead, in so many ways, on conservation in the country. I commend you for that.

It's always a question of where to start. Maybe we can start with CPAWS. We touched a bit on funding and what you've seen on park establishment. Has CPAWS ever taken a position on what level of funding they would like to see Parks Canada, as one specific organization, invest for both terrestrial and marine establishment?

We heard earlier this week that there's in the range of some $40 million for park establishment in this year's budget, but not necessarily a reference to marine conservation areas. Do you have any thoughts on the desired level of funding that you would like to see behind the park establishment program?