Environment Committee on June 12th, 2017

[Matt Jones]

We'll be doing analysis based on the full country, so I don't have that information at the moment. We've been focused on implementing our benchmark and our backstop approach, and the analysis will be forthcoming when we have greater clarity on the rest of the provinces.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That could take years, because you don't have them all in and you're talking about 2022 if you're saying that. That's your backstop, 2022, so that's a cop-out. You have two provinces. You're doing it now, and we know you're doing it now, because you know their systems. You are refusing to release it province by province—is that what you're telling me?

[Matt Jones]

I don't have that information.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I will move on.

Let's go to the inventory and touch a bit on that. One of the things we saw when we were working with protected areas was that quality versus quantity became very apparent. When you talk about DND properties—there's Suffield in my region, and there are many of them. You're talking about provincial and about municipal, and you might think it's small, but I'm looking for money in here to get that inventory done. I think that's a really critical piece, because it's really quality stuff that we see in a lot of those places. I'm missing that in here.

[Rob Prosper]

You're correct in terms of the quality and how important that is. The target is 17% for terrestrial and freshwater. However, if the quality is not there, you're not leveraging that investment in creating additional protected areas. Looking at—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I got that, but where is your money to get that inventory done? That's going to take a bureaucratic process with the province and municipalities. There's no money in here for that.

[Rob Prosper]

Maybe Environment....

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

There is an existing system of collecting the information on the protected areas. It's a program that's already funded. There's a complicated system that comes into Environment and Climate Change Canada.

One piece that has been missing is the private lands part of that. Funding was provided to that maybe four years ago, and Environment and Climate Change Canada is implementing.... We are now getting more data into the system on the private lands.

Is that what you were looking for?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Could you follow up and tell me how the process works in working with the provinces, how you're accounting for the municipalities, the federal lands, like DND? How are you accounting for this and what is the process you're using? Could you get that for me?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Yes, we could get that back—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That would be great. I really appreciate it.

Last, we talked about acquisitions. One thing we ran across is having money available and having a lot of it when you need it. Timing is important. We saw, in the Salt Spring Island area, opportunities to get some pieces of property. You need cash, and you need it now. You don't need bureaucratic years to get it. Our suggestion is that there needs to be money available to get specific pieces of property quickly. I see a very small number in here.

We can think of a property that went up for a million bucks, which would have been critical, but it wouldn't happen under what we have here.

[Rob Prosper]

I believe, if I hear you correctly, you're referring to the new parks account. Essentially it's a fund that has a seed fund in it, the idea being, I believe, and I stand to be corrected, that when opportunities arise from a surplus in other lands that are no longer needed, those funds can actually go into that fence fund for the purpose of investing in other areas.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

My point is that it's much too small. You need to access a quantity of cash soon, in hours, days, weeks. You can't wait, “Okay, we have a fund over here”, and then six months later, some decision is made. These are critical pieces in the biosphere that are out there and that we can't get because there's not enough money or the process takes too long.

[Mitch Bloom]

I can't speak to the money, but there was a recent change, which just got through the Senate and we're awaiting royal assent, under our Bill C-18. It allowed us to change the nature of that account so that we could actually invest in existing parks, additions and expansions.

You were right. There was an inability to take that money and spend it strategically and quickly had something come in. That amendment will now allow us to...not just for new parks but also for the ongoing expansion of an existing park where there is an opportunity as you describe.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Great, but I still think the pot of money you're talking about is too small. I think these are critical pieces that we need to.... If you're going to make sense out of this in biospheres, it's different. It's like the Flathead park that I will talk about, next to Waterton Lakes National Park. Flathead park needs to be part of the protected areas. We need to be moving on it. We can't sit around and wait for that, when it's out there and sitting there. It's not purchasing; it's protecting.

Anyway, I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You are out of time, but those were good questions.

Mike Bossio or John Aldag.

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

Are we the last ones?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You are, and then it will be Linda. Linda will be last.

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

Thank you.

I wanted to go back to the park establishment stuff. We've been talking a bit about that. Does Parks have a current valuation of 2017 dollars for what it would cost to complete the systems plan as currently envisioned?

[Rob Prosper]

I do not have a number to do that, although we do use notional targets for the purpose of initiating negotiations as to what it might take to establish and run parks in different circumstances. For example, for a northern terrestrial park, we have an idea, a baseline cost of operating that type of park, which is obviously quite different from that of a southern park in a more developed area. We have those types of guidance numbers. But in terms of an amalgamation of what that would take to complete the system, no.

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

Okay.

It's interesting. We did our protected areas study, and it was something I think we looked at. In this year's budget there were millions of dollars for new park establishment, but as we advocate for meeting our Aichi targets, it would be useful to have a dollar number that we are at least striving toward so that we could ask Finance and the cabinet to put those kinds of resources toward it.

Mr. Bloom, in your last comment you touched on this idea of moving forward with park establishment money. As you noted with Bill C-18, new flexibility was given to establishment funds. Again, looking at future resources moving forward and what we need to complete the unrepresented areas, if we've started costing out additional lands, with the flexibility that comes through Bill C-18 to add to existing parks, I'm wondering if we have any sort of idea of what that current need could look like to help with the planning of future estimates. Has any thought been given to that, or is it on a more opportunistic basis as opposed to a strategic basis?

[Mitch Bloom]

I will add to what my colleague said with two quick comments. As you pointed out, there's a negotiation to every park. That's why when we fund these things, the way we get them funded is, in phase one, through planning and negotiation. That will then dictate other elements as to how the park gets established and what associated costs there are. Notwithstanding that it's true we do use formulas so that we are applying a logical, consistent approach, it's albeit very dependent on where you are and the type of park you have. A northern park versus a southern park would be a very good example of that. So yes, that's taken into consideration.

I would also add that in the government's recent budget we received some funds to help support the ongoing maintenance, I would call it, of our assets, which are quite large in the case of Parks Canada. The government also announced that we will be undertaking a medium- and long-term review of our asset base, which does have implications for some of the questions you asked around our parks system. As we continue to expand the parks system, it will be important to make sure that we are doing it in line with the expectations of Canadians in terms of what those parks do. We are taking about the next year and a half, I would say, to think that through as part of what the government committed to in its last budget.

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

Okay. Thanks.

Perhaps we could hear from both groups on the student side, which I'd like to explore a little bit. We've talked a bit about this, but I'm just trying to get a sense of it. During the very first round of questioning we heard about the expanded pressure, with Parks Canada in particular, that may be coming from the increased interest from Canadians to visit this year, the free year during Canada's 150th. I also know that within the federal service there's this balance of students coming in to supplement work versus replacing work. For both Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada I'd be curious to hear the plan.

I think in Parks Canada's submission, you indicate there's 1,140 additional secondary and post-secondary students. How much of that work is envisioned to supplement the work already being done in the agency, and how much of it is actually just to do employee jobs to respond to the increased demand?

As well, I'm interested in hearing about the kind of work the additional students at ECCC will be positioned to play in the coming year.

[Sylvain Michaud]

For Parks Canada, those jobs are to provide students with opportunities to learn about the natural and cultural environment. They are, in that sense, real jobs. It's also about creating opportunities for young people to gain valuable work experience at Parks Canada. It's not so much to replace current employees as it is to provide the students with those new opportunities. Part of the strategy is also to make sure that people can pay for their studies. It's providing a source of income.

[Carol Najm]

For Environment Canada it's a little different. Our program is delivered through a third party. We fund employers who hire students. It's not really students who work within Environment Canada. They work in multiple industries, including not-for-profits, academic institutions, and so on. We provide the money through contributions to employers to subsidize interns.