Evidence of meeting #26 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 arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
I have the interesting position of being on both the fisheries and oceans standing committee and the transport standing committee, and we've been asked to look at the Navigable Waters Protection Act changes and the Fisheries Act changes that were brought about in an omnibus bill back in 2012. Depending on who you talk to, you may hear that this change stripped a lot of protection from the majority of our rivers, lakes, and streams. The oceans are protected, but a lot of things lead into oceans.
We're being asked to dial back all those changes. Should we, or are there some things you've noticed in those changes that should be preserved?
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
It would be our view that the changes to the Fisheries Act have been exceptionally problematic. They were a very important protection, environmentally. We haven't advocated the position I'm about to say, but I think if the government had just put them back and then gone out and consulted about how to look at a fisheries act for the future, we would be protecting the environment much better. They're very important, and I don't believe there's any debate about whether they're effective. Perhaps some people criticize them for being too inclusive, but they're exceptionally important, and our freshwater team would concur with this as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. We're out of time on that. Thank you very much.
I'm going to add four minutes to each party, and to make it more useful, I think I'm going to give Wayne four minutes with his three, so he's going to get seven. Then we're going to go four and four.
Is everybody okay with that? Okay.
Wayne, you're up.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you.
I'd like to go back to my earlier question and give Mr. Crowley a chance to answer it.
There's a pretty short time frame to reach these targets. We're making a series of recommendations to government, so what's the most important thing we, the government, can do to gain the confidence of the Inuit to move forward with a protected area agenda in the north?
Vice-President, Arctic, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
I think the most important thing is to do this transparently. What are the economic benefits? What is the baseline management that can be handed over to communities? Have that up front right away and across the board, being fair and not renegotiating from one space to the next, from one community to the next, or from one land claim to the next. Start at the highest level right off the bat, and get to “yes” very quickly.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Miller or Mr. Taylor, is there anything you'd like to add to that?
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
I concur with Paul, but I'd also reiterate very briefly what I said previously. Getting out and talking to HTOs—hunters' and trappers' organizations—regionally, Inuit organizations, land claims organizations sooner than later, in an open and transparent way, is the most needed step right now. If it doesn't happen soon, you won't get the 5% in 2017 and you won't get the 10% in 2020. The tick-tock is happening, and time is very quickly running out.
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
I'd concur with what both of my colleagues have said.
There are two things. Moving rapidly on Lancaster Sound is really important because it shows what's possible and it demonstrates respect for Inuit involvement in establishing a marine protected area. Since the Shell leases are gone, the last real obstacle should be out of the way. That's very important. It would also show that we can make this work.
The second thing is subtle, but I think we need to consider the positive economic impact of protecting the environment. For example, is it possible to have some small-scale fisheries, self-sustaining ones, that would create some employment there?
Those kinds of discussions are more complicated, and they go back to Mr. Taylor's point about starting the conversations with the Inuit organizations as soon as possible.
I think that layer of thought into conservation is really critical, because the argument, of course, for drilling for oil is that it's going to create jobs. With great respect, it won't create very many up there. There will probably be none for the Inuit, and it will threaten people's very subsistence existence, so having the countervailing potential is really important as part of the discussions, I think.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
We're concerned about quality as well as quantity in terms of protected areas moving forward.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
The map that you gave us, you said, is primarily from government?
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
What's your view of quality as much as quantity on this issue? I think I heard you say there are other areas that the Inuit would probably add, from a quality perspective?
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
There's not anything wrong, as such, with that map. As a matter of fact, one could argue that if it's really important, then how is it that 50% of it is really important...? Some people might ask that question. Well, obviously, it's important for a reason. It is biologically and ecologically significant and sensitive and what have you.
The Inuit map very much would lie over that; they've identified areas that are in some cases smaller, but almost all.... Again, I'm not speaking for Inuit, but if you look at a map of where Inuit live, at the map of ecologically and biologically significant areas, and at the map of what they've identified from a historical use and occupancy perspective, you can see that they might have been nomadic people who eventually settled in communities, but they moved and eventually settled in places that are critical wildlife habitat.
They are critical. From a migration perspective for belugas, narwhal, seals, and polar bears, the Fury and Hecla Strait is critically important. It's practically insignificant from a shipping perspective, but a no-brainer from a protection perspective. An MPA can and should be established in that area. There have been discussions on it; they should be back to it now. They should have been back to it last winter. The discussions on that area should already have started between DFO and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. Why they haven't escapes me.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
To reflect Mr. Amos's request, if you have that Inuit map, it would be great to get a copy of it.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
Yes. Suffice it to say that once you lay on the maps, it becomes very clear and very easy to pick out the 10% that is critical and achievable.
With regard to some of the other points about hydrocarbon development, you can do it without even going into the sedimentary basins that have been identified. Once you have Lancaster, you can grab 10% in the Arctic very easily without having much in the way of adverse impacts on economic development.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
On the request, since I might not have time to get a response...?
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I'm really interested in how you make shipping and conservation work together. I don't know whether we have time to talk to that today, but if not, if you have some good papers you've read on how to make the two work, could you send them to us?
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
We have a study on shipping in the Arctic that we can submit. It's about fuel, predominantly, and if there is anything else we'll submit it to the committee, if that's appropriate. We've certainly been looking at this issue.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
That would be great. I'm interested in how the two can work together moving forward, because of course it's essential to maintain the shipping in the Arctic.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
On that point, in terms of the shipping report that we've developed and our recommendation here in the presentation today that management of shipping corridors and marine protected areas needs to go hand in hand with Inuit involvement, it is in large part because to manage shipping in the Arctic you have to manage it with ecological and biological sensitivities in mind. That doesn't mean that you stop shipping, but it might mean that you reroute shipping or that certain types of ships go at certain times of the year.
Look at the Bay of Fundy. You don't have to look any further than the Bay of Fundy and right whales and Irving and shipping lanes to see that these types of things can be done and have been done in the past. If you look at the—
I'm going to shut up now. Thank you. I see the flag.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
In terms of process, anything you can send us becomes part of the evidence, so it's important that you send us things.
