Environment Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Dr. Chris Miller]

In my own experience here in Nova Scotia, when I was invited by the provincial government to participate in a small team of experts that selected areas, we were looking for high-quality sites. We weren't looking for sites that just avoided conflict; we were looking for ones that contained species at risk, old-growth forest, that sort of thing.

The reality of Nova Scotia is that there is a big, heavy human footprint here. There is a lot of human impact. In many respects, finding those areas that are of high quality is important because so little of it is left.

With regard to quantity versus quality, there were constraints in Nova Scotia that were largely set by the EGSPA, and so we were mostly looking to fill up a basket with high-quality sites.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Why would that be any different anywhere else in Canada? Why wouldn't we be looking for high-quality sites versus quantity anywhere?

[Dr. Chris Miller]

My short answer would be that it's not a choice between quality and quantity; we need both.

We need to make sure that we're selecting areas that are of high ecological value. In many cases, those are the large intact wilderness areas that still remain—places such as the boreal forest of Canada, for instance, which supports woodland caribou. They need large areas because they have very large ranges. If we want to protect that species, we need to be selecting the best habitat and ensuring that there's enough of it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Going to Mr. Hunka, I think, having wandered through the legal world at one time in my careers, that this fits in a little bit with what you were saying. On the other hand, not being as negative about it, I find most legal people want to try to keep it out of the court system, because that's a better way to solve problems.

When you describe your process, I ask, having read the document, how you would envision it happening without a legal something at the end of it. Do you see no legal entities in this process at all?

[Roger Hunka]

I see a legal entity in the context that Canada will have declared this to be a marine protected area, and both levels of government—in the case of Nova Scotia, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada—have declared a specific marine area to be a marine protected area. That becomes the legal instrument, through the Oceans Act or through the terrestrial acts.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I understand consultation, working for consensus, and all the rest of that, but at some point there has to be some legal documentation, some legal court documents that are verified and that everybody accepts. Do you agree with that?

[Roger Hunka]

Well, yes. All stakeholders and rights holders would have to agree that yes, this will be a marine protected area.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Your idea of building consensus, then, does eventually end up in a legal framework.

[Roger Hunka]

Well, obviously, yes, it would.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Okay, good. I was wondering about that, because I was reading it and turning it the other way around, starting at the grassroots and building it up, but did it end in a final legal framework? I think I have that clarified. I just wanted to make sure, because without that, I think we have a problem.

[Roger Hunka]

The Gully is a prime example. The Gully was not brought about by governments. It was academics—university scientists and so forth—who said they thought we should protect this area, and it went upwards.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Right.

[Roger Hunka]

Finally it was given sanction by the federal government. The provincial government didn't object to it, but said, fine, we'll have it as an MPA.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That's great. I appreciate that.

I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're good with your timing. I don't know how you get that sorted out so well all the time.

Mr. Bossio is next.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have just one question, for Anna Metaxas and for Chris Miller. Then I'll be sharing the rest of my time with Mr. Aldag.

In the testimony of both of you—Anna, you alluded to this in your testimony—we've seen, and in other reports that we've done as well, that in order to achieve this target and continue to achieve it and monitor it we pretty much have to legislate the targets that we need to achieve and the review of those targets and we have to update plans to achieve and enforce them.

Do you think that's really the only way we're going to get to those targets? Are those means imperative?

[Dr. Anna Metaxas]

First of all, I think it's imperative that we have clear targets.

I guess I would like to clarify what I mean by a target. I heard about Parks Canada suggesting that there are conservation strategies, priorities, etc. That is absolutely correct, and management plans include protecting the health of the ecosystem, to give you an example, but the “health of an ecosystem” is a bit vague. What we need to do is say that for this particular ecosystem, health means this. It means we have so many of these animals, or we have so many new animals coming in, or so many new plants. That's the target that we can then go back to measure every year or every five years or however frequently we need to do it.

The conservation priority is of a broader character than a target. The target does not need to be legislated, because it will be specific to the particular reserve, protected area, or whatever you want to call it. What needs to be legislated, I think, is that there be a measurable target, not what the target is for every single one, because they will vary.

[Dr. Chris Miller]

On the terrestrial protected areas, Nova Scotia is currently ranked third in Canada, while the other Atlantic provinces are at the back of the pack on protected areas in terms of total percentages. What are the reasons for that?

What I highlighted in my opening remarks is that there are three main reasons. One is that there is clear legislation that says this target will be met by this time and that there is an accountability measure on that. That's really important. The real-life experience from Nova Scotia was that as successive governments changed through time, the legislation stayed the same.

Number two is systematic conservation planning versus a site-by-site approach. If you're doing one site at a time, it's going to take you forever to reach your targets. Use the proper science, use traditional ecological knowledge, select the areas as batches, and ensure that you meet your targets.

The third one is collaboration very early on in the process. Bring in people, start to build a consensus, make sure you talk to everybody who has a stake and an interest in the conservation. Doing that might take a little longer to get things started, but overall, with implementation and getting support for the final plan, there's a much greater chance of success.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you both.

Go ahead, John.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thanks.

Parks Canada, I'm curious about this parcel of land we were talking about. I don't know whether either of you would be able to give the information, but I'm wondering what other equivalent pieces of land are within the Parks Canada holdings that are simply awaiting legislation to bring them under the protection offered by the National Parks Act, which would then give the kind of mandate for ecological integrity and other protections.

Is that something either of you would be able to do? Maybe we could direct it to the agency.

[Karen Jans]

I'll let Kevin speak specifically to it, but I will note that we manage it as if it were under protection.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

But you wouldn't have the same authorities for charges and....

[Karen Jans]

That's correct; however, it is managed according to the same standards.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

[Kevin McNamee]

I think we can provide you with a broader list.

For example, one of our priorities will be that once we secure a park impact and benefit agreement with the Nunatsiavut government for the national park reserve in the Mealy Mountains, it will clearly require legislation to protect it. There would be a number of other national parks, such as Gulf Islands, that would have some small parcels of land that, when the time is right and opportune, we would bring under the act.

Just to clarify, when we negotiate establishment agreements, between the time that the land is transferred to Canada and when it is brought under the act we negotiate the ability to have the province designate our wardens as able to enforce certain wildlife and visitor safety things. It's not as if the land is just not watched over.