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.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Mr. Crowley, I'm sorry to do this, but we are over time on that question. Maybe we can get back to it through other questioning.
Mr. Bossio, I don't know if you want to carry that on. It's up to you.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I have a lot of ground that I want to cover myself, so I hope you don't mind. There's so much to talk about and so little time.
Thank you very much for being here today. This has been very informative and will help in generating this report.
The IPAs, these indigenous protected areas, are such an important aspect of achieving our Aichi targets. We were very fortunate to make a trip to Haida Gwaii a couple of weeks ago to see this in action, to see what it can truly look like and what benefits can be derived from that fifty-fifty relationship.
Do you think it's imperative in moving forward with the Inuit to have not just a relationship but a fifty-fifty partnership, working hand in hand together, like the model in Haida Gwaii?
I have a number of questions, so I'm going to try to get people to move along.
4:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Arctic, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
The bottom line is yes. I would flip it even further, though: I think there's a role for Inuit to manage these areas for Canada, rather than having Canada manage them.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
That was going to be my add-on. What we found in Haida is that the majority of the people now working in Parks Canada are Haida. The Haida are managing it. The Haida now have a $73-million investment trust that they're using to open up businesses in the north. They're managing things almost completely by themselves, but it started as that partnership, in order to initiate it, to get the training, and I guess to instill that hope for the future that they now have for their own people.
It goes deeper than that. There is this true connection they have in their souls, both to the land and to the water, right? It is totally tied to who they are. That was going to be my next question.
The Haida are now going to the water. They've had the 50/50 partnership on the land; now they want the 50/50 partnership for the water as well, in terms of protecting the water. On the marine side, they want to extend that. They're now going for title as well, for both the water and the sea shelf, out to the 200-mile limit.
One big piece of this is that they want a protected area 50 miles offshore, a no-go zone, period, for shipping, for commercial and industrial fishing, and for exploration and mining, so that there will be no shipping even allowed in that area, because of the sensitivity around having an Exxon Valdez out in the ocean. If a ship breaks up, then it's far enough out that the currents will take it away from land rather than to it. Would you agree that this is also imperative in these Arctic marine protected areas?
4:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Arctic, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
The experience I have from working in the north and from talking with communities and individuals is that they want to protect their heritage as marine people who have hunted these waters, whether on ice or on water. I can't speak for them, but I can repeat what I've heard, which is essentially that they want to maintain the heritage that they want to offer to their grandchildren.
In certain areas that are incredibly important, whether it's Lancaster Sound or others like the North Water Polynya that we've been hearing about lately from communities, they see themselves as part of those ecosystems and as the best managers of those ecosystems. I haven't seen anything in my 20 years in the north to dispel that notion. I would agree. I would be quite content if communities in the north managed those areas on my behalf.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
Yes, sure.
As I said in my remarks, I think this really needs to be driven by Inuit. It needs to be managed by Inuit. I wasn't aware that you had been to Haida Gwaii. Recently I was there as well, with some people from northern Labrador, from Nunatsiavut.
For those who don't know, the Torngat Mountains National Park was part of the land claims settlement in Labrador. The Inuit of northern Labrador basically said that the Torngat Mountains National Park was their gift to Canada. They insisted that it become a national park and they insisted that a clause be included in that national park agreement such that there could be a marine component added later, which they now are beginning to pursue. I hope the federal government moves with them on that down the road.
For the Haida, as you know, that didn't start off as a 50/50 partnership.
4:25 p.m.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
It started off as the Haida saying that they were going to protect this area. Captain Gold, on his own, essentially—
4:25 p.m.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
—started this.
It was the same thing we had our discussion earlier about how one value was placed over and above everything else. In Haida, it was the logging industry. In the north, it has been mining and oil and gas development.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Do you think it's imperative to move forward here—I'm sorry, I'm running out of time—to establish a 50/50 relationship? Do you think that once again, as Parks Canada has done in hiring 50% Haida—actually, more than 50% Haida—the same thing should happen in DFO to establish that cultural change within DFO, emphasizing conservation rather than development? Do you both agree with that?
4:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Arctic, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
I'd go a little further. Under the Nunavut land claim, for instance, it should be representative of the population, and that is the requirement. Since 85% of the population is Inuit, why aim for 50% when you should be representative?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our presenters.
Mr. Taylor, on your website you stated that there's often a big push to protect areas that are under ecological threat, but less so for regions that are ecologically thriving. I think you cited Manitoba's coastlines. Can you please elaborate on the science behind which areas to protect, and why?
4:25 p.m.
Director of Fisheries Conservation, Oceans North Canada
I really can't speak to the science behind the areas to protect that have been identified. DFO, Environment Canada, and a variety of other federal agencies have gone through a process to identify areas are ecologically and biologically significant. Parks Canada has a process of identifying representative ecological areas and whatnot. I am ill-equipped to speak to that.
As for protecting areas that are under threat as opposed to those that are not, and you referenced the Manitoba coastline, we found in our work there's a very large population of belugas that, as you may know, spend their summers in the estuaries of the Churchill, Seal, and.... The other river escapes me now. I should be ashamed of myself. My work colleague is going to kill me.
Anyway, we've been advocating that there need to be protective measures introduced in that area. It could be a marine protected area or a national marine conservation area or whatever, but some form of marine protection needs to be afforded to that population in their summer range, and that is supported by adjacent Inuit communities.
That is not advocating to support protection for a population that appears to be under imminent threat but to protect a population that is abundant. There's probably a reason that nature has some populations that are abundant; it's because they need to be abundant in order to survive. The northern cod population off Newfoundland was huge. It collapsed for a variety of reasons, and one in particular. It's been very slow to rebuild. It probably needed to be big in order to be resilient, so we advocate that in some areas you don't protect an area just because it is affording refuge for the last of a species: you need to protect areas because they afford a refuge for this huge amount of a species.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
I will add to Oceans North's answer from the World Wildlife Fund's perspective.
All of our recommendations about marine protected areas are based on science, which may be to do with a species—it's a particular place for that species—or to do with all of the biodiversity represented by that area. In that context, in the Arctic it's our view that the science is very clear: the area is very fragile. It's also timely to protect the areas now before problems ensue from the melting sea ice and from the potential for both development and significantly increased shipping traffic.
It's science-based. Some of it can be protective and forward-looking, and we have a chance to get it right now, which is why we're so thrilled with the work of your committee.
I would like to add one other thought, which isn't in any of our notes—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Before I lose my time, I just want to ask you a different question.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
Oh, sorry. I might have a different answer too.
4:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'm sure it's through the Nunavut Tunngavik organization that the Nunavummiut have an exclusive sovereignty over large parts with resource wealth and are looking for opportunities to exploit the mineral wealth. What is your perspective on the drive for resource development in the north and the goals of conservation?
I noticed earlier that you said you didn't think there should be any oil and gas at all, and you seemed to be a little bit hesitant on mineral exploration.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
In marine protected areas with high standards, the position of the World Wildlife Fund is that there should not be drilling for oil and gas. We think that's self-evident from the science and the biology, particularly when there is a significant feeding area for fish and whales, for example. From an economic development perspective, it's probably negative as well. It probably costs more jobs than could potentially ever be created, particularly through seismic and other exploration.
We're not opposed to mineral development, but we do have concerns about mineral development in certain areas. We're making submissions to Nunavut land use planning in that regard, particularly with regard to the caribou calving grounds, which are extremely important. Mineral exploration has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
In that context, I think it's also important for the committee to think about this. If we can move quickly on marine protection, there's also a strategic issue for Canada. As the sea ice recedes and the Northwest Passage becomes more navigable, protected areas strengthen our claims to sovereignty. I think that layer is rarely mentioned in these issues, and it's extremely important.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative