Environment Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Let me refer to the first point. I don't want to in any way dismiss the value of private lands. They're absolutely very important. One of the things we will be doing as part of this process, this road map to 17%, is we will be doing a very careful definition of what is in and out, and how we define other effective conservation measures. I think there is huge potential there in terms of counting the numbers but also the quality.

Your second point I think was related to the value of working landscapes and—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What kind of active management do you envisage? There could be controlled burns and grazing to protect certain biodiversity values. Do you envisage that as being part of a protected areas program?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Certainly our national wildlife areas need to have active management, so we see that as part of the suite of activities.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I was surprised that in the your testimony and Mr. Prosper's, I did not hear the word “farmers” once. Throughout your testimony I was listening very carefully for the word “farmers”.

Farmers control 150 million acres of the southern working landscape in this country. As we all know, in terms of ecological values and threatened and endangered habitat, it's the farmers who control these lands.

Why were farmers and rural communities omitted from both your testimonies?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

There was certainly no intention to omit farmers. We actually see them as a very important partner, particularly in the conservation of species at risk, but also in protecting important landscapes in order to get to the 17%. We have a number of programs in Environment and Climate Change Canada that are focused specifically on working with the ranching and farming communities.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I know. Some of my own farmers are enrolled in these programs. However, I was listening intently for the word “farmers”. I have found it to be a consistent pattern in my six years as an MP, on the environment committee and the fisheries committee, that when it comes to the list of people who are consulted, farming communities, agricultural communities, and natural resource communities are never mentioned. I want it on the record that I want to see those communities equal to all the other people who are consulted.

As this program unrolls, I would like to ask both you, Ms. Milburn-Hopwood and Mr. Prosper, will you commit to ensuring that farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are equal partners in any consultation process?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

I have no problem in making that commitment. We very much work with farmers and ranchers all the time. It's very much a part of our existing work. We will continue to do so.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

As someone who represents a farming community, I notice that farming and ranching were not mentioned in any of your testimony. That was a very important point for me. Now that it's on the record, I'm looking forward to this happening.

Mr. Morel, you were talking about the marine protected areas. The angling community in Canada is some four million to five million strong. Will you commit to ensuring that the angling community, the sport fishing industry, is an equal partner in all of the consultations that occur in the development of marine protected areas?

[Philippe Morel]

I can certainly commit that we will consult everyone when we create marine protected areas so that they're all equal partners and we're not excluding anyone.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

As I said, I'm also on the fisheries committee, so I assume you'll be before us when the marine protected areas issue comes up.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

It's good to have all of you here together. I appreciate your taking the time.

Trying to get to 10% and 17% by 2020 means you don't have very much time. I'm curious regarding a couple of aspects and how you are working together to reach those targets and whether that work is sort of parcelled out by agency. Have the different agencies been asked to contribute specific amounts towards those targets? Have you set up targets by year so that you can measure your progress towards 2020? I just don't want to get to the end of 2020 and have departments pointing fingers and saying that they would have made it if it weren't for such-and-such department not following through on what it could have done.

Describe to me what working together looks like and what the targets look like moving forward, if you could, please.

[Rob Prosper]

I can start, if that's possible.

As I mentioned in testimony, I think that working together is going to be absolutely key. There is no one authority responsible for protected areas or other types of areas that can contribute to biodiversity. I think we all recognize that there are going to be a number of different ways to reach this target, and we need to collectively determine which new tools in the tool box will help us and give us some flexibility to take advantage of other ways of bringing areas into protection for the sake of biodiversity that are different from the traditional ways of establishing protected areas.

Provincially, territorially, and federally, we are in the business of developing protected areas or parks, but I think we all agree that other types of measures are going to be required. It's going to be really important in the pathway development to explore what these other opportunities are, to bring some definition to them that we can hopefully reach consensus on, and then to apply them for a national approach rather than an approach that's simply broken up by individuals. I think we would be remiss if by the end of this process we didn't have a series of commitments from the potential authorities as to what they're going to do.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

At this point, do you have targets laid out by years heading towards 2020, or is it going to be like university, when you wait until the end and then cram to try to meet the objectives?

[Philippe Morel]

Maybe I could jump in, and Sue can continue.

Each of us has a work plan. Ours is to meet the target in 2017 and the 10% target in 2020. We share our work plan with colleagues in other departments, at all levels—the director, DG, and ADM levels. You saw in my presentation that I referred to some activities or marine protected areas that have been contributed by Environment or by Parks Canada, and we integrate those into our target.

We don't necessarily have a certain percentage for one year or anything like that. Our target is, for 2017, to reach the 5%. We have some measures that already exist and we're progressing through those. Also, we take into consideration the length of the new marine protected areas or other measures that we can implement and put those into a plan to make sure we can meet our target in 2020.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

I would just add that the three departments are working very closely together, with DFO leading on the marine side and Parks leading on the terrestrial side. I think we all have to contribute in all three of them, so it's a very close connection.

On the terrestrial side, there are some areas of the country that have more potential than others, particularly in the north, but not only in the north. Both Ontario and Quebec have also made commitments to their northern parts for larger tracts of land. We are going to have to work very closely with the provinces and territories, and the various planning processes within, to enable that potential. It's more about looking at where the potential is and taking it from there.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Of course, you are the group that knows best how to deliver on the target. We heard earlier that the Oceans Act might need to change. I am wondering what other legislation we might see coming before Parliament, if there is any, that would need to be changed in order to reach these targets by 2020.

[Philippe Morel]

For marine protected areas, no other legislative changes are anticipated, other than the Oceans Act. That's the only one.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Is there anything terrestrial?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Nothing at this point. I think the Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act give us sufficient scope to create them. There may be some tweaking that could be done that might speed up the process, but I think we have lots of scope within the existing legislation. Actually, some things may be able to happen without legislation, particularly when you look at things like the other effective conservation measures.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Next up is Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thanks, folks, for being here. I appreciate it.

My first question would probably be for Mr. Hopkins.

Last week, we had a prominent indigenous leader appear before the committee, Steven Nitah. I asked him whether he had any suggestions on how the federal government might do things differently when we are negotiating for the establishment of protected areas. He said:

One of the biggest challenges we had at the negotiating table was fettering the minister's authority. When we're talking nation-to-nation discussions, the minister has to be able to get into a partnership relationship with indigenous governments and be able to share responsibility and authority over those areas.

If you are the right person for this, Mr. Hopkins, can you explain the legal significance of “fettering the minister's authority” and how this legal hurdle could potentially impede negotiations? What are our options in the future of perhaps finding better ways to negotiate?

[Mark Hopkins]

I'm sorry. I cannot explain the legal implications of “fettering the minister's authority”, but we can pursue an answer for you.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

All right. Thank you.

Will we get something like that in writing?