Environment Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll try to make my questions short. The purpose here is to get evidence on the record so that we can write a report on the basis of evidence brought here by our expert witnesses.

Does either of your organizations have proposals for a specific set of areas in the Arctic, whether marine or terrestrial, that you believe would be the best starting points for an integrated, comprehensive set of conservation areas? I understand that your response will be that it should be driven by the Inuit. I agree with that and I understand that. That said, have you as organizations set your minds to the areas that ought to be protected, and is that evidence that could be submitted to the committee?

[David Miller]

I think both organizations have done some work on that and could submit our analyses of where we think it's important.

I don't want to speak for Oceans North Canada, but I think the answer is yes. We could submit something.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Is that something that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Perhaps I can make the point here that everybody should have on their desks the ecologically and biologically significant areas that you have identified as starting points.

[Trevor Taylor]

Yes, that is correct. Those were by DFO and other federal agencies.

I don't have it with me, unfortunately, but a map exists as part of the land claims negotiation process. The Inuit mapped areas from a use and occupancy perspective, areas that have been important to them from a cultural, ecological, hunting, and lifestyle perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That would be great to get.

[Trevor Taylor]

We have proposed areas, so to speak. They're not hard and fast areas, but we've said to the federal government and various agencies and politicians over the course of the past couple of years that if they were serious about this 10%, if they took the EBSAs and took the Inuit stuff, they could easily generate a map. It might look like this or it might look like that, but it's very easy to get 10% of these core key areas.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It would be great to get thoughts from both Oceans North and WWF on where those specific areas could be. I note that while the government has identified objectives of 10% and 17% in marine and terrestrial, there also has to be a long-term vision. I would presume that we wouldn't want to limit ourselves to 10% and 17%.

Moving on to the issue of budget, it will come as no surprise that this will be a major challenge. Do you have submissions to make, or could you make submissions, in relation to specific budgetary allocations that you feel are necessary in order to get to the targets set in the Arctic region and to go beyond to what is actually necessary if you're going to achieve real conservation to enable the maintenance of a traditional Inuit lifestyle with all of the ecosystems intact?

[Trevor Taylor]

We have gone through a very poor exercise on that, so I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with advancing numbers from a budgetary perspective. We have gone through it, but—

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

You understand my concern—

[Trevor Taylor]

I do.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

My concern is that what will come up will come up solely through the department.

[Trevor Taylor]

Yes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

We're a new government still—

[Trevor Taylor]

Yes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

—so the process of building confidence around what numbers are necessary in order to achieve appropriate objectives is, I think, open.

[David Miller]

The best we'd be able to do is order of magnitude, I would think.

[Paul Crowley]

Again, we have to be very cognizant that it's with the Inuit that Inuit impact and benefit agreements will be negotiated. We'd really be in awkward position to say, “This is how much you should be allocating to that.” However, I will say that the perspective needs to be long term. It's not just a one-off payment; it is a long-term payment that allows for capacity-building, for training, for infrastructure associated in the communities. We have to remember these communities often have no marine infrastructure, not even a boat launch.

My guess is that whatever has come up through the department won't be nearly enough to take on the task, which is to develop an economy and a community that is truly working from conservation. I would say that even though that may appear to be in the end a big number, it's budget dust down here.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

I have a very quick question for Mr. Taylor. Would you agree that an integrated shipping lane—I'm not sure what the correct term is, but integrated shipping planning—is a necessary component of any conservation initiative? Do those things have to be done together?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have 30 seconds for that answer.

[Trevor Taylor]

Yes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That was easy.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Do I have 15 seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, 15 seconds.