Evidence of meeting #17 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biodiversity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I hate to do this, but you're over the eight minutes. I want to make sure that we have as much time for questioning as we can. Could you do one more very quick wrap-up statement?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
I will indeed.
I will finish up by saying that government can act quickly when the will is there. There are numerous examples of speedy parliamentary action on protected areas. We have listed some of those in the brief. Where there's a will, there's a way. Law can be a force for change.
We'd be happy to answer any questions or go into more detail about some of these innovative legal provisions that can guide you as you continue your study.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Linda, I really appreciate your patience.
I'm sorry to have to keep cutting everybody off, but we're going to begin a round of questioning now. We have six minutes each, and I'm going to be kind of strict.
Mr. Fast, you're up first.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you very much to all our witnesses at the table.
My first question is to Linda Nowlan, just for clarification.
You referred to international legal commitments we have for setting aside terrestrial and marine protected areas. What do you mean by legal commitments? Are those binding, enforceable legal commitments, or are you suggesting that these are aspirational targets that we as Canadians should be enshrining in the law within Canada?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
The legal targets are binding. We are a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Aichi targets that you've heard so much about are a legal commitment.
We also have commitments under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 192 requires all states “to protect and preserve the marine environment”, with no qualification to that duty.
There's further guidance about creating networks of protected areas in both the biodiversity treaty and the UN sustainable development goals.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm assuming those international agreements don't have any enforceability provisions.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
When Canada signs a treaty, it means it to have legal effect in Canada. The Oceans Act is one of our vehicles for translating international commitments into law in Canada.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, but I think you understand what I'm saying. No enforceability mechanisms are incorporated into those international agreements. The reason you're here at the table is at the very least to encourage us to enshrine those commitments in Canadian law. Is that correct?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Yes, that is correct, but even if the targets are not put into our legislation, the fact that we've committed to them in international treaties does make them binding on us.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Right.
I have a broader question. I'll ask Mr. Bates to start with his answers, and the rest of you can jump in.
Over the course of this study on conservation, we've heard a range of testimony on the degree to which Canadians should be able to use parkland, whether it's protected areas or national parks. CPAWS was in here giving testimony, and the general direction of their comments was that interaction between humans and the parks and protected areas themselves should be limited as much as possible.
I also noted that the minister's mandate letter highlights two things: one is to protect areas and the other is to significantly increase the interaction of Canadians with nature within our parks and our protected areas. There's a natural tension there between the use of these facilities by Canadians and the imperative to protect those areas to ensure biodiversity is maintained and that the activities we undertake within those areas do not in any way measurably degrade our environment.
Mr. Bates, how do you reconcile those two? You speak for a broad range of users of our parks, including the anglers and hunters.
Acting Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice-President, Canadian Wildlife Federation
There are important degrees of designation that allow flexibility for compatible use. If we're too strict in defining and limiting use, it will make it harder for us to achieve our goals of conserving biodiversity. If we are flexible around the degree of protection in different areas, some areas that are extremely important to the survival of a particular species or multiple and very sensitive species may be less able to deal with certain types of human interaction, but there are other areas where activities like ranching and all kinds of other activities would be very compatible with a lower level of protection. We're quite open and happy and supportive of multiple use in most situations.
Executive Director, Secretariat, Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
Our presentation focused on the concept of ecological benchmarks in the design of the protected areas network, particularly for the boreal area of Canada. Their intention is to be a control, if you will, that helps us better understand how we're managing the whole landscape of the boreal. As such, it is critically important maintain these controls, these ecological benchmarks, close to their natural condition and preserve the ecological integrity of those systems so that they're an effective reference that can help guide our management of the wider landscape.
Protected areas are there as our controls for management on the wider landscape. They need to be managed with ecological integrity as a priority, which isn't to say that human use is incompatible, but it just needs to be secondary to that overarching objective of ensuring we preserve the ecological integrity of those systems.
Liberal
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to thank all of our guests today for their patience through a bit of a challenging morning. I really appreciate that.
I'm trying to make sense of my notes, with the disruption we had.
I'm going to start with Mr. Chalmers. A few days ago we heard from the prospectors and developers, who talked about the need for transparent and inclusive decision-making processes. I'm interested in hearing from the mining sector as to what your thoughts are.
I take the comment from Mr. Fast. I spent my career in Parks Canada trying to strike that magical balance between use and conservation. We always had a bit of a saying. It was trying to get the right people or activities in the right place at the right time, and it's really about that balance.
I'm wondering, from the mining industry's perspective, how we get the right activities into what are often pristine or untouched wilderness areas. What's the right activity in the right place at the right time, and what processes does the mining industry use to guide that?
Vice-President, Sustainable Development, Mining Association of Canada
Thank you.
Earlier my colleagues raised the notion of flexibility in land use, and I think it's really important when we make decisions about the kind of land use conservation we're going to be putting in place to understand which critical ecosystem values we need to protect and to identify the actions necessary to address those threats. Also, I think that understanding the value of the land on an economic basis and understanding the subsurface mineral potential are pretty critical.
A number of years ago we worked with the Nature Conservancy to negotiate some park boundaries for the park on Bathurst Island up north, and part of that process involved weighing the ecological values versus the mineral values. In some cases mineral tenure was given up, and in some cases mineral tenure was protected. I think it was a real multi-use process that came up with a responsible order for the park.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Would you say that the existing processes that you work with seem to be effective in helping find that balance?
Vice-President, Sustainable Development, Mining Association of Canada
One of the things we have been observing recently is that we represent 75% of the workload of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. There's a disproportionate focus on mining in terms of environmental assessment, which, in our view, is a really important tool for making decisions around land use.
To your point around making decisions with multiple voices at the table, that's fairly limiting, and I think it's something that could be addressed.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Speaking of decision-making and multiple voices at the table, I think what we've heard with Aran's and Kim's and Kate's presentations is that there's been some great work done within the forestry industry. I'm really intrigued with the work that's going on.
I'd like any of the three of you to comment about what has worked in the model you've been developing, as well as any limitations. I was reading a document in which one of the criticisms or concerns was that aboriginal communities haven't been as involved. In these multi-party discussions related to boreal forest conservation and maintaining a healthy forestry industry, what's working and what's not?
Executive Director, Secretariat, Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
Maybe I'll lead off with a few comments and then turn to my colleagues. I'll just make a couple of quick observations.
The first thing is that generally, in advancing protected areas across the country, collaboration is the key, by which I mean cross-sectoral collaboration with governments, industry, conservation groups, and indigenous communities all involved in a conversation. That's clearly the approach we need to foster. We are stumbling our way, as part of the CBFA, towards that, working with the provinces across the boreal and dozens of first nations communities in the landscapes where we're applying some of the protected areas principles that Ms. Lisgo showed to you.
The key to it is collaborative planning, being at the table together and searching for solutions. The fact that we can find the solutions together, in dialogue and discussion, is really the Canadian difference.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Kate, could we hear from you about what you feel has worked and if there are things you would like to see strengthened as we try to find that balance between industry uses and conservation?
Director, Conservation Biology, Forest Products Association of Canada
Thanks for the question. I'll build a bit on what Aran said.
Where we've seen success has been, I believe, where we brought parties to the table early. I've been involved in some work in Newfoundland. We invited the provincial government and the indigenous communities to the table right from the beginning. Often these processes are complex and they take more time, but I think having the right people at the table leads to a better outcome, and it achieves that broad-based support, which I think is important.
There's not much to add to that. We've had challenges, but I think it's about collaboration, relationship-building, and building that trust. It's an understanding that although protected areas provide some conservation outcomes, what the forest sector can do from an adaptive management perspective to build on those protected areas is quite key. It will take more than protected areas to provide these conservation outcomes.