Environment Committee on May 17th, 2016

[Aran O'Carroll]

Collaboration takes work. It's hard work and it takes time. but it's important to motivate collaboration through aspirational targets. Certainly that's part of what we've done in the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement by setting out very ambitious timelines that helped motivate our progress.

[David Browne]

I think there are different options for meeting those targets. Some have had a lot of collaboration and a lot of talking and are ready for some action. For others, as you say, I don't know if the time frame to meet the target is sufficient to even get through the beginning of the discussion.

I think it's definitely a challenge on how to have appropriate consultations and discussion about new protected areas and meet the targets, but there are certainly a lot out there that have had ongoing discussions for a long time and are probably ready to move forward.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Somebody would have to make a judgment on where to go first.

[David Browne]

That's what one of the witnesses was proposing: clarity on who makes the judgment.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

What about Ben?

[Ben Chalmers]

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

What about the ladies in the video? Would you like to chime in?

Go ahead, Kate.

[Kate Lindsay]

I'll echo what Aran spoke to. I think collaboration is key. We thought the SARAC was very valuable, as were some of these multi-stakeholder committees on regulatory development. Absolutely, you need to sit down with the people who might be impacted by these policy decisions and hear from them. It takes time, but I think the end result is better.

[Kimberly Lisgo]

I agree with what Kate and Aran have said, and there are other mechanisms that can be brought in during that consultation process.

For example, the CBFA did put aside some deferral areas for caribou while they were working on developing a caribou action plan. There are mechanisms to mitigate that delay when considering protected areas.

[Linda Nowlan]

I too think collaboration is absolutely essential. We have lots of examples when there have been years of collaboration between different levels of government, such as, for example, the marine planning partnership once again. There have been years and years of collaboration, and now it's time to move on with getting the designation in place.

One thing I wanted to mention is that under the Oceans Act, we don't have a mechanism for interim protection of important marine areas that need protection, so if it's going to take 20 years, for example, to put a protected area in place, you need to be able to put in something as an interim protection measure.

We have a provision for emergency orders, but that's very different from interim protection. While the collaboration is going on, let's put in some interim protection for these important ecological areas in the ocean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Mr. Stetski, you have three minutes.

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

I have a quick question for all of you.

What timeline target would you like to see for achieving these 10% and 17% objectives? As you know, the longer we wait, the harder it gets, so give us an idea of realistic time frames for reaching these targets.

We can start with Aran and go around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We put you on the spot.

[Aran O'Carroll]

Thank you.

Actually the target does come with a timeline on it. I'm not intimately familiar with what that is, but I'm sure one of my colleagues will inform us.

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

I'm interested in your personal view as well. Should this be a five-year objective? Would you be happy if 15 years from now we're still trying to get to 10% and 17%?

David.

[David Browne]

The objective was set many years ago, so it certainly gave us the time frame, hopefully, to achieve it. Right now we're looking to 2020 and being able to report. I think we want to get as far along as we can by 2020.

I'm not in a position to have done an analysis of what's on the table and what can be.... I think the departments have done that and have given to the government what they have on the table and whether that adds up to the targets or not, and what that would mean.

Presumably the departments are trying to make that add up to meeting the targets, because that's what parliamentarians are probably asking.

The timeline is set by our treaty, so I think we have to stick to that.

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

Ben, the mining industry always wants certainty, so the sooner the better, I assume.

[Ben Chalmers]

I would say one of the challenges is even understanding where we're at. We heard some commentary around various interpretations of classification.

I know my colleagues in the exploration sector have long been looking to try to understand all the various tools that are in place and what kinds of protection there are from a species-specific and a landscape perspective, and what that adds up to.

Even making progress towards understanding where we're at now would be helpful.

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

Linda, do you want to comment?

[Linda Nowlan]

Sure. Thanks.

I think the targets that are put in the ministers' mandate letters are achievable. You heard from Kevin Stringer from DFO that these targets have actually ignited a lot of passion and enthusiasm within DFO and across the country among conservation groups, indigenous communities, and different levels of government that are going to work to achieve them.

It's going to be a stretch to get from 1% to 5% next year on the marine side, and then to double that by 2020, but because of all the years and years of work that have gone on, I think it's possible, and we should definitely go for it.

As you know, Prime Minister Trudeau and President Obama said in relation to the Arctic that's it's not the end point. We fully support reaching those targets within the time frame and the ministerial mandate letters.

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

Kate, do you want the last word?

[Kate Lindsay]

Similar to what others have said, with regard to Canada's 2020 goal of 17% terrestrial, I think it would be interesting to know where we stand now.

My understanding is that the federal government is working towards meeting that target. One thing we would emphasize is a broader definition of conservation or protected areas outside of the IUCN categories I to IV, as well as conservation measures as part of forest management in the form of long-term deferrals, set-asides, riparian areas, etc. Some recognition of achieving those conservation outcomes could be embedded, perhaps, outside of a protected area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm sorry, Kimberly, but we don't have any more time to do more discussion.

I want to thank all of our witnesses again for taking the time to come back and be with us and for being patient while we were running back and forth.

Before I close the meeting, I want to make sure the committee knows that we did have a subcommittee meeting. We are now moving that subcommittee to a half-hour before the committee on Thursday so that we can then pass what we come up with in committee. Otherwise it goes another week, and we'll be in a bit of trouble. We're going to try meeting half an hour beforehand, so it's 10:30 back here for the subcommittee.

I'm seeing shaking heads. If you can't come, can you find someone on the committee who might be able to stand in for you?

I know we've given out some planning documents, and you'll have those to help you come prepared.

Thanks again to everybody. It was a great meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.