Evidence of meeting #30 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 parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Going back to Mr. Miller on the exception for oil and gas development within the park boundaries of Sable Island, was there a reason that the federal government chose to leave that exception there? I suspect there may also have been a provincial concern that it should be left open pending future consideration either by the federal government or collaboration with the provincial government to make sure that economic opportunities weren't being lost.
I will also open it for comment from Mr. McNamee. He may know what the background of that decision was.
4:30 p.m.
National Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Very quickly, Sable Island is a very special place for Nova Scotians. It's a sliver of sand in the ocean that Nova Scotians care very deeply about. I think most Nova Scotians want to protect it, and for the most part want it to be left alone.
That said, all around Sable Island there are oil and gas exploration opportunities, and that is occurring right now. The issue with the national park was whether this sliver of sand would be closed to oil and gas exploration while the rest of the area around it remains open. At the time that the legislation was being debated and discussed, CPAWS proposed a number of amendments that would have made it very clear that Sable Island is off limits to oil and gas exploration.
With regard to the provincial government, the offshore accord implementation act is a piece of mirror legislation, so it's both federal and provincial, and my understanding is that changes to that would require both levels of government to agree.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You're saying that the result of that legislation was both levels of government agreeing, at least for the time being, to leave that exception in place.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Mr. Fast, I'm sorry; I have to cut it off. Hopefully somebody can pick that up later.
We are now on to Mr. Stetski.
I just want to say that I'm very mindful that Mr. Hunka gave testimony that talked not to hitting the targets but to actually changing the whole approach. I want to make sure he knows we didn't not hear what he had to say, but nobody is asking questions about that.
I'll give you a chance.
Go ahead, Mr. Stetski.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Hopefully, we'll get to that.
I just have some information for Dr. Metaxas.
When we met with the ADM and director general from DFO a few meetings ago, they did say right up front, when I asked whether there are any barriers to reaching their targets, that they needed to change their legislation so that things could move forward, and more quickly than seven years. We're looking forward to seeing that happen.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I have a question for Mr. Miller.
I'm going to read this because I want to set the stage properly, I guess. You mentioned Sable Island in your opening remarks, and I want to follow up on that issue in terms of ensuring protected areas, in the larger sense, really are sufficiently protected.
As I'm sure you're aware, in response to a petition by the Mikisew Cree First Nation, UNESCO was investigating the government's failure to protect Wood Buffalo National Park, I think from the impacts of oil, gas, and hydro projects, including Site C in British Columbia. We should see the results of that fairly soon.
Wood Buffalo has been a world heritage site for more than three decades and could now land on the UN list of sites in danger. UNESCO has also repeatedly raised concerns about the impacts of oil and gas projects on Gros Morne National Park and has warned that its heritage site status may also be compromised, and you've spoken about oil and gas exploration on Sable Island.
The government is committed to restoring ecological integrity as a priority in our national park system, but we have heard concerns from a number of witnesses that our protected areas are not as protected as they should be.
In your view, what measures does the federal government need to take to ensure that our national parks in Canada are better protected and preserved?
4:30 p.m.
National Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Thank you for the question.
Since we're discussing protected areas in Atlantic Canada, and that's what I'm most familiar with, maybe I'll start with that.
I think there would be tremendous public support for ensuring that the Sable Island site is fully protected. I know it could be complicated to fix the legislation, since making that change requires both levels of government agreeing on those changes. However, I think it's something that the public would support.
With regard to Gros Morne and the UNESCO designation, my understanding of that issue is that there are a number of holdings within the national park where some fracking and some oil and gas exploration were proposed. That would have had big impacts on the national park. UNESCO sent a team to Canada to investigate, and they concluded that there was a threat to the UNESCO site and that the way to fix that would be to implement a proper buffer zone around the park.
4:35 p.m.
National Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I'm not sure if it's proceeding, but there's been a clear ruling from UNESCO that that needs to take place. Certainly coming up with a plan to actually establish an effective buffer zone is something that the federal government could do in collaboration with the Newfoundland and Labrador government.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hunka, thank you for your presentation and for pointing out the 83% of the land and the 90% of the water that would not be protected.
However, we're quite challenged, because currently about 1% of marine areas and 10% of land areas are protected. I think we really need to start somewhere and grow that to 10% and 17%.
We've heard from many aboriginal people that they would be interested in new types of protected areas that basically share responsibility for managing these new protected areas, perhaps even a system of aboriginal protected sites across Canada. How do you feel about that, and would you see that, as some of the other groups that we met with do, as reconciliation as well?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council
The issue is not just picking out hectares of water or hectares of land. We must remember that we are looking at unique ecosystems, biodiversity, and habitats. That is what we are trying to protect, not just a land mass. That is the key. Otherwise, you could pick a lake. You could pick all kinds of things. We are looking for unique, special habitats with unique species and so forth. That is the challenge.
What we have, though, is a problem where even DFO—and I would probably hazard Environment Canada—has not yet designed the guidelines for practitioners to operate under—the scientists, the biologists, and so forth. We are totally lacking information. This is a massive country.
It's not to chase down and get 17%. That's useless. That doesn't meet the targets internationally, and it doesn't meet the goals we have established for ourselves and internationally. That is what we are trying to protect.
As for the land masses the aboriginal communities have, the traditional territories they have talked about, yes, there are a lot of unique features there, but again, the crown has to work with the indigenous peoples of our country, and there isn't any evidence of that happening.
I would say we have a failure of governments themselves to come to grips with this issue of protecting unique ecosystems, habitats, and the biodiversity of this country. We are not doing that.
October 20th, 2016 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks, folks, for being here. That was some great testimony.
I want to take a moment to thank all the members around the table who supported my private member's bill last night on mercury-bearing light bulbs. That was certainly a highlight of my life.
This government has made a firm commitment to improving and supporting ocean research and innovation. I am pleased that my riding of Dartmouth–Cole Harbour has a new Centre for Ocean Ventures and Entrepreneurship. I think Dr. Metaxas knows it as COVE. Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada are known worldwide for their outstanding ocean research at Dalhousie and other universities. I am thrilled, Doctor, that you could be here today from Halifax to join us.
With our vast oceans, as you mentioned, protecting 10% of our marine environment means basically monitoring 710,000 square kilometres. How can we best monitor MPAs while managing the huge associated cost? Is this a good opportunity for further ocean innovation projects? Do you have any quick thoughts on that? Is there anything out there that our government should know, or could learn from you on this?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I think monitoring is going to be a major task that we are not actually thinking about right now. We are just trying to draw those boxes.
There has to be some research done on how to do it efficiently. There could be economies of scale. For example, if you have closures, MPAs, or reserves that have similar types of species or characteristics—they are offshore; they are large, remote, or coastal; they are all plant-based environments, or not plant-based—I think there could be some strategies developed in one particular area that could then be reproduced across the lands or the ocean.
It is a serious problem. There is actually ongoing research globally—and we are starting to do a bit on the east coast—to understand what the most efficient way is of doing this monitoring. There are no simple answers, so we have to do the research to find out what the trade-offs are, the costs and the benefits.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It sounds incredibly expensive to monitor 710,000 square kilometres.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
That's right. To take a ship out for a day costs $30,000. You do the math.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
Dr. Miller, coming from Nova Scotia, I am deeply proud of our provincial commitments—which you spoke about—for expanding our protected areas and for the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. As a province, we've been able to establish a massive amount of protected areas. You spoke about Fisheries and Oceans maybe coming up with a new philosophy, coming up with a network in order to hit targets more quickly. Is that a kind of made-in-Nova Scotia approach that they are looking at? Is that something that the federal government is learning from Nova Scotia?
4:40 p.m.
National Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I think the EGSPA legislation is somewhat unique in that it sets a whole bunch of targets and timelines for a lot of different environmental issues at the same time. It covers everything from greenhouse gas emissions to water quality to protected areas. That is a unique element of it.
The sole purpose is to have the targets and the timelines with annual reporting, so that it transcends changes in government. That particular legislation was introduced under the Progressive Conservative government, a lot of the targets were met under the NDP, and now the current Liberal government is also continuing to implement much of the content of the legislation.
I definitely think there are some elements to it that are useful at the federal level, though the biggest success story for Nova Scotia on protected areas is actually the implementation of the protected areas, the actual creation of these areas. In many cases it cost a couple of hundred million dollars to acquire the lands that were most important for conservation. That political will is really key in making sure that we get to the targets that we set.
