Evidence of meeting #27 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 target.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
This is just a suggestion. When it comes to traditional ecological knowledge, I would include farmers and ranchers in that category as well.
I think it was in the mandate letter to the minister that I saw freshwater MPAs such as Lake Winnipeg and some of the Great Lakes mentioned. Do you see that ever happening given that freshwater is largely under provincial jurisdiction, at least in the provinces?
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In the context of Aichi target 11, it is ocean-based, not freshwater-based. That doesn't mean we don't do marine protected areas in freshwater areas.
I would defer to Rob to talk a little bit about what Parks Canada has done in the Greats Lakes and perhaps in other parts of the country.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
Yes.
We do have marine conservation areas in the Great Lakes, and they actually count, strangely enough, towards the terrestrial target. For example, with the recent work in establishing Lake Superior national marine conservation area, it was for a short time the largest freshwater marine conservation area in the world, only to be bumped out, very closely, by a similar marine park area by the U.S. in Lake Superior.
They can actually contribute quite significantly to the terrestrial target.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Again, the issue is jurisdiction.
Ms. Milburn-Hopwood, can biodiversity objectives be achieved on land that is actively farmed or ranched, in your view, and would those lands count as part of the protected areas? I'm thinking of species—I go back to the burrowing owl, the bobolink, and so on—that do well under certain farming practices.
Do you folks acknowledge those farming practices?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Absolutely.
In fact, for some species you need to have the farming practices. For bison, for example, you need to have that manipulation of the landscape to allow those species to move forward.
This is what we get to as we move forward with defining the other effective conservation measures. I think there are many examples of farming practices, perhaps modified slightly, that can very much seek conservation goals.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I have one question about SARA. SARA was promulgated in the early 2000s. Can you name a species that was brought back, taken off the SARA list, since SARA was promulgated? Can you name a species?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
With some of the DFO ones, I think there's the humpback whale. I'm not quite sure where it is in the formal delisting process, but that's certainly one that's designated to move forward.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We can provide you with names of some that were either downgraded or completely delisted. There are a few.
I think the humpback whale was the most recent one. It was published in the registry just a few months ago.
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
I would add that there are the ones that have formally gone through the delisting process, but then there are also the ones that COSEWIC has reassessed and moved to a better category.
We could provide you with a list of those.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Chair, I'm going to yield my time to Mr. Amos.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.
My question if for Mr. Hopkins.
Previous witnesses have suggested that INAC's mineral and energy resource assessment, MERA, processes, which are a condition precedent to a number of conservation issues that might be undertaken, have impeded expeditious conservation.
Could you give us your opinions on that issue?
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Well, I don't have access to that testimony, so I don't know which particular instances they're referring to.
It's policy practice that part of the designation of areas is that there be an assessment undertaken, so that there's an appreciation of what the opportunity costs of the establishment of that conservation area might be. It is policy.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I couldn't pull a number out of my head.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Perhaps you could give a ballpark number. Are we talking months or years?
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Well, it really can vary. It depends entirely on the particular case, the landscape involved, whether there's science in place already that can be accessed and used to assess oil and gas potential.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I have a question on a separate topic.
I think the starting point for the comment is that a number of us believe that INAC can be a fundamentally positive partner going forward in terms of achieving not just the 10% and 17% objectives, but going far beyond those figures. We are looking forward to INAC collaboration across the federal family.
However, I guess I have another tough question for you.
To what degree would you say that the Government of Canada's past failure to implement the terms of modern agreements, such as, for example, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement...? I'm sure you're aware that the Nunavut Court of Appeal indicated that article 12 of the NLCA wasn't adhered to, and that aspect required the setting up of a general environmental monitoring plan. There's a summary judgment saying that the federal government, in 2013, had not fulfilled its commitments.
To what degree does that kind of non-fulfilment of legal requirements pursuant to modern day agreements impede broader initiatives with first nations or indigenous peoples across Canada from achieving conservation goals that are jointly done?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Implementation of those treaties is a vital and important aspect of the department's work. A branch has been established, and subsequent to the particular case you're referring to in Nunavut, a lot of effort has been applied to ensuring that the terms in particular of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are implemented. There is now a Nunavut general monitoring plan in place. These kinds of monitoring plans, which are also in place elsewhere such as in the Northwest Territories, are an important part of building a picture of the landscape that will contribute towards the identification of areas for potential protection.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, sir.
If I have some speaking time left, I would like to ask Mr. Morel a question.
I was very pleased to hear the presentation you made to us and the written presentation you provided.
To go back to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there are groups that have been calling on the federal government for quite a few years to establish a process for designating protected areas or conservation areas everywhere in the gulf, before governments or departments decide to permit any kind of development.
Where does the department stand on this issue?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The department sits on a bilateral committee — federal and provincial — on protected marine areas that Environment Canada and Parks Canada and three provincial government departments also sit on it. The objective of the committee is to designate marine areas of interest and make progress on things in that regard.
Recently, the American Bank and another marine area, in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, were designated through that process. There is a third, but I have unfortunately forgotten what it is. The governments divide up the work of determining what the best mechanisms or legislative tools are for protecting the marine space. There is also the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park, which is managed jointly by the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec and Parks Canada. This marine area is considered to be of interest for protecting the beluga, a species that is now at risk. The possibility of this park being used to protect that species' habitat is being studied.
So we are working with those departments and with interest groups, environmental groups and the fishing industry. That collaboration, which is becoming increasingly official, has been in place for 25 years and is improving every year.
