THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello. My name is Rosa Galvez, I am a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I’d like to begin with a little reminder. Before asking and answering questions, I would ask members and witnesses in the room to refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or removing their earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
[English]
Before I ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, I would like to welcome Senator Judy White, who is joining this committee as a permanent member. Thank you so much. I will ask committee members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta. I am the sponsor of this bill, and I live in Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, from the Barren Lands First Nation in Manitoba. Thank you.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings.
Today the committee has invited government officials to appear as part of its examination of Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations. Apart from the officials, we have other guests from Indigenous people groups and also people who work in public health. For our first panel, we welcome: Adeline Salomonie, Director, Marine and Wildlife, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, in person; Professor Ryan Norris, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, by video conference; and Dr. Melissa Lem, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, by video conference.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us. Each of you have five minutes for your opening remarks, starting with Ms. Salomonie. The floor is yours.
Adeline Salomonie, Director, Marine and Wildlife, Qikiqtani Inuit Association: Thank you. [Indigenous language spoken] good morning. My name is Adeline Salomonie. I am the Director, Marine and Wildlife with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, which oversees the work related to Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area. We are currently located in Iqaluit. However, we have five affected communities within Tallurutiup Imanga and 25 employees within that section.
Our 25 employees within Tallurutiup Imanga provide food security for the affected communities they live in as well as research and monitoring, community engagement activities and search and rescue. Our department is currently — I would say — 99% Inuit employment. We’re very proud of that and very proud of the work and the food security that our [Indigenous language spoken] programs have been able to provide within Tallurutiup Imanga.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Professor Ryan Norris, the floor is yours.
Ryan Norris, Professor, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, as an individual: Good morning. I am Professor Ryan Norris. I am from the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Guelph. My research focuses on conservation of wild populations, primarily birds, butterflies and salamanders. I’ve done quite a bit of research on parks nationally and regionally, and I have done quite a bit of work inside parks as well.
I am involved in a reintroduction of an endangered butterfly species here in Ontario. I’ve done a number of macro assessments of the effectiveness of the parks system in Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Are those your opening remarks?
Mr. Norris: Yes, that’s it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Dr. Melissa Lem, the floor is yours.
Dr. Melissa Lem, President, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment: Thank you and good morning, committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill S-14. As a family physician and President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, whose mission is to better human health by protecting the planet, I wholeheartedly support the spirit of this well-named bill, Protecting Canada’s Natural Wonders Act.
On a personal level, I want to share how much access to nature meant to me in my formative years. I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto in a majority White neighbourhood where local green spaces, including Rouge Park, which we now know as Rouge National Urban Park, were essential places for me to escape bullying and racism and find belonging. Bruce Peninsula National Park is where I fell in love with nature during my family’s camping trips, splashing in the blue waters of Georgian Bay, and looking up at the dark sky filled with thousands of stars away from the glow of the city.
Research tells us that children who spend more time in nature are more likely to grow up into adult environmentalists, and I am a living example of this. Over and above the biodiversity values and pro-environmental behaviours that nature access inspires across the lifespan, it is so clear to me as a practising physician how important it is that we prioritize nature-positive measures within our cities and beyond.
In 2021, as we know, over 600 people died in British Columbia during the western heat dome. Patients streamed into my office with more cases of heat illness than I have ever seen in my entire career, and emergency room colleagues told me they were literally running from room to room intubating patients having seizures from heat stroke. Research from the BC Centre for Disease Control revealed that alongside advanced age, chronic disease and lack of inner cooling, lack of proximity to green space was an independent risk factor for death during the heat dome. The worst wildfires we saw in Canadian history this year filled hospitals with heart attacks and asthma exacerbations from smoke pollution, costing the Ontario health care system $1.28 billion in just one week. The health harms of climate change we are seeing in real time stem from our historic lack of protection and respect for the ecosystems that form the foundation of our complex social and structural determinants of health. Only 20% of our health stats in Canada comes from our health care system, and the other 80% rely on factors like clean air, clean water and safe and healthy environments.
Though the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment campaigns to reduce fossil fuel use and demand, including advocacy for strong and effective greenhouse gas emissions caps, and banning fossil fuel advertising, the simultaneous truth is that we will not keep 1.5 alive without immediate action on nature protection. Scientists estimate that fully embracing nature-based solutions for climate change could get the world over one third of the way to its Paris agreement targets. Not only that, but nature protection and getting people to those outdoor spaces are broadly supported by my colleagues within the health care system. I also direct PaRx, Canada’s national nature prescription program, powered by the BC Parks Foundation, where over 12,000 health professionals have issued over 600,000 prescriptions for time in nature to improve their patients’ health. In 2022, we proudly and gratefully announced a collaboration with Parks Canada where our prescribers could prescribe free Parks Canada Discovery Passes to their patients to facilitate their access to nature.
Strong and effective regulations are also needed to keep nature protected as it protects our health. I applaud the amendments in this bill that will strengthen Canada’s ability to prevent pollution and degradation of natural spaces, and I would also reinforce the importance of a right to a healthy environment and principles of environmental justice that were recently added to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and ask that the committee consider these in how this bill will be enforced.
Protection of lands and waters in Canada must also take place in full collaboration with Indigenous peoples. Scientists estimate that intake of essential nutrients by B.C. First Nations could drop by over 30% by 2050 due to declines in marine food species from climate change. Protecting green and blue spaces while ensuring access to them for traditional practices are essential for avoiding unintended health consequences for Indigenous peoples who already suffer from lower health status due to systemic inequities.
In summary, concrete action today on nature conservation and protection is vital for healthy environments to sustain healthy people. The planet and our health systems are telling us loud and clear that there is no time for delay and also that there is broad support for these measures across Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. We will go to the question period, starting with Senator Sorensen.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. My first question is for Ms. Salomonie. I understand that Parks Canada is currently working with Qikiqtani Inuit Association, or QIA, the Government of Nunavut and key federal departments to complete an interim management plan — I worked on many of those as well — to guide management of Tallurutiup Imanga among a National Marine Conservation Area. During the establishment process for the National Marine Conservation Area, I also understand there was extensive consultation with local communities. Can you expand for us what those consultations looked like, and I am curious how those negotiations are going on that plan.
Ms. Salomonie: Sure. Thank you for that question. Before the Tallurutiup Imanga agreement was signed, of course there were consultations, especially around what Inuit wanted within that region and what the boundary would look like for Tallurutiup Imanga. Since then, more community consultations are occurring within the Tallurutiup Imanga communities, in regards to either research and monitoring, consultations around small craft and community harbours. They are currently ongoing. It is a very busy time for our department. I think we are currently about to start more consultations for Tallurutiup Imanga and Tuktoyaktuk as well.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
To Mr. Norris, I would mention I am a Guelph grad but not at the level of education you have, but I certainly enjoyed my time there. With the increase in the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, ensuring these lands can benefit from the highest level of protection is more important than ever. In your opinion, do you feel that Bill S-14 strengthens the tools used to operate and manage national parks and national marine areas and assures us that Parks Canada is better placed to deliver on the conservation agenda for the Government of Canada?
Mr. Norris: Yes, I do think it strengthens those tools. It provides Parks Canada with more power around substances, such as pesticides, that might come into parks. I think that’s good.
Expanding the area of parks is always a good thing. We are at a fairly low level of total protected areas in Canada, I would say. Obviously, Parks Canada contributes to the total amount of protected area in Canada. It’s about 3% or 4%, so it is important to expand the boundaries of the parks, too. Anything that can create a buffer between parks, protected areas, such as national parks, and non-protected areas will always be a good thing.
Senator Sorensen: I appreciate the work you do. I think when people think about national parks, they don’t always necessarily think about the marine life in the national park. Again, I appreciate that is what you focus on.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, Ms. Adeline Salomonie.
I know nothing about this new national marine area which will be created in your region. Could you please, for us who know little about it, tell us why you are interested in conservation of this area? What will it bring to the Inuit people in concrete terms? Why are you in agreement with this project and what will it bring to you? What kinds of rights will be enhanced or not? We need to know a little bit more about this place up there.
Ms. Salomonie: Thank you for your question.
Starting in the 1960s, Inuit have been advocating for the protection of Tallurutiup Imanga, or Lancaster Sound, from oil and gas development. Inuit are connected to the waters and the wildlife very closely, so the importance of protecting this area was very near and dear to our hearts. It is within the High Arctic and North Baffin region of our area. The five affected communities — as I had mentioned — are Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet and Clyde River. The protection of it was very important but also what that could mean for Inuit within the area.
Right now within Tallurutiup Imanga, we have 25 employees decentralized. That’s 25 people who are benefiting from economic opportunities and are able to have full-time jobs within their communities. Also, it allows our Inuit employees to be paid as full-time hunters, researchers and providers. Having employment where they can use the skills they have known all their lives — hunting, being on the land and knowing the environment — is the real tangible benefit that Tallurutiup Imanga has been able to provide for the communities. Also, some communities will be getting small craft and community harbours. We are a coastal region, so having these kinds of infrastructure in place is very important for us. There are also plans to build multi-use facilities within Tallurutiup Imanga. These facilities will be workstations for our employees to be able to process country food, have workspaces and provide community engagement activities.
One of the things employees do when they do community engagement activities is to engage elders and youth to practise our traditional skills like making [Indigenous language spoken] — or sleds as they are called in English — as well as learning to repair skidoos and their boats. Tallurutiup Imanga has also provided equipment for our employees to be able to harvest and do research and monitoring in our area. We are able to provide them with resources they need to be able to do their jobs, like snowmobiles, boats and equipment for them to be out on the land.
They also receive training that they may not have been able to easily get. Having certifications for firearms or search and rescue are tangible benefits they’ve been able to receive. We call them transferable skills. If they don’t want to be in Tallurutiup Imanga forever, then they can go on to other types of employment. We provide those kinds of certifications as well. That’s what the Tallurutiup Imanga has been able to provide for us.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: As a short follow-up question, you said you were afraid that oil and gas development would happen. Was there any serious project on that front up there? Will this new protection prevent any kind of industrial or mining development? Would there be nothing?
Ms. Salomonie: I wouldn’t say there would be nothing —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I shouldn’t be saying “nothing” — this is not the right term. There would be no industry or no mining?
Ms. Salomonie: Oil and gas development started happening within the area in the 1960s, and Inuit became very concerned about what that would mean for our region and our people. Of course, we wanted to protect our waters and wildlife from any harm that could cause.
Right now with Tallurutiup Imanga, research and exploration could maybe happen in the future, but it has to go through a process in which an application has to be submitted to the [Indigenous language spoken] board, which is the board that governs the Tallurutiup Imanga. As you may or may not know, the Tallurutiup Imanga is a co-management system with the federal government. Therefore, any kind of activities that are happening within our region will have to go through an application process.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. It’s just very helpful. I have one broad question for all three witnesses: Could this act be improved in any way? No act is perfect. Are there things that are not in the act that you would like to see and that you think we should consider here in terms of an amendment to the act? Is there anything missing? Do you want to push the boundaries a little bit?
Specifically, we have heard from Dr. Lem about the impact that the Rouge National Urban Park had on her life. What criteria is used to identify the creation of a national urban park? Is the Rouge National Urban Park a model for the rest of Canada? How many are there? I know there are none in Saskatchewan.
Similarly, about the expansion of parks, I am happy to see that the Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan is included in this work. What are the criteria for expanding an existing park? How does that work? What are the plans, generally, for the expansion of other parks and then duplicating something like the Rouge National Urban Park in other provinces and territories?
Senator Sorensen: Chair, could I suggest that question is probably better left for the next panel? The minister and Parks Canada will be there. I’m not sure these witnesses would be able to respond to that second part of your question.
Senator Arnot: Can you remember that question, and ask it?
Senator Sorensen: That’s okay. Mr. Campbell is in the gallery.
The Chair: I think every senator has the right to ask a question.
Senator Sorensen: Yes. I’m sorry. I’m just suggesting that maybe —
The Chair: The first question is about whether there are any improvements that can be made in this act. Do any of the witnesses want to answer that question? Is there room for improving this particular bill that we are studying today?
Dr. Lem: I would be happy to suggest two possible improvements to this bill. One of them, specifically, has to do with the provisions that have to do with protecting parks from pollutants and harm. There are some areas where, for example, if the person fails to take the measures they are ordered to take, the minister may take the measures on behalf of His Majesty and right of Canada. I would like to see that language in there — that the superintendent may or the minister may — perhaps consider changing that to “shall” so that enforcement and notification do happen.
One other provision that I think could be established has to do with more involvement of people in this process. I’m wondering if a citizen enforcement mechanism could be built into this bill and also language around removing barriers to citizen participation in reporting these toxins or pollutants that may be identified by people in the community.
Sometimes, as we know, if industry or government is responsible for monitoring and reporting on these issues, it doesn’t always happen. Therefore, I would like to consider that both these amendments and improvements be made. In particular, the second one which is more important to engage everyday citizens in this reporting.
The Chair: Do you have more on that point?
Senator Arnot: On that exact point, Dr. Lem, could you please follow up your comments with a note — a memorandum — in writing about those two amendments you just suggested?
Dr. Lem: I would be happy to.
The Chair: Do we have a date or deadline for when we want that information? We would appreciate to have that sent to us — to the clerk — by December 7 at the latest. Thank you so much.
Do Ms. Salomonie or Professor Norris want to add something to improve this bill?
Mr. Norris: I just want to say that I’m in full support of the amendments that Dr. Lem proposed. I don’t have a specific amendment, but I would just like to take this opportunity to recognize that, in particular, some of the parks in heavily urbanized areas and heavily developed areas really need more than what is currently being added here. We need to keep a focus on that. Some of these parks are really islands in the middle of heavily developed areas.
I’m happy to talk about specifics if the committee wants, but really we need more protection around those islands. I know that won’t be an amendment to the bill but just wanted to put that in.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What clause did Dr. Lem want to amend?
The Chair: We will have those in writing.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In writing, but this is in two weeks.
The Chair: Right now?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does she know which clauses she wants to amend?
The Chair: Dr. Lem?
Dr. Lem: Yes, it is clause 32, Mitigation of Environmental Damage. Both the citizen reporting amendment and also the “shall” instead of “may” would both fall under that area. In clause 4, it’s supposed to be replaced by a new section that has to do with pollution and protection.
The Chair: Dr. Lem, you had another question from Senator Arnot concerning your experience with urban parks. Do you remember or should Senator Arnot repeat the question?
Dr. Lem: Could you repeat the question, please?
The Chair: He asked if there was a model or if you knew if there were other examples of urban parks elsewhere. He said there are no urban parks in Saskatchewan.
Dr. Lem: I know through working with Parks Canada that other national urban parks are under development, and some of them I believe are in the Prairies. That’s something perhaps to follow up with Parks Canada about.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Welcome to all the guests here this morning. When we look at the history of colonialism and colonization, which is land dispossession, I really approach all the legislation with hesitancy. When I look at this bill, there are articles on Canada’s national parks are colonial crime scenes and the shady past of Parks Canada forcing out Indigenous people. That’s the history of it. Despite all that, Inuit still have their traditional knowledge regarding environmental guardianship that has been passed down since time immemorial.
When I look at this bill, are you happy with the bill? Is it going in the right direction? When I look at the new transformative relationship that Canada has with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, in this situation, the Canadian government and conservation should prioritize Indigenous-led conservation, and this will involve providing adequate funding, capacity-building opportunities, and legal frameworks that recognize Indigenous jurisdiction and decision-making authority.
Will this bill accomplish that? Can you comment on that?
Ms. Salomonie: I can try my best, yes, thank you. I think it is a step in the right direction. Tallurutiup Imanga is a co‑management system, so Inuit are at the table when it comes to the management of the area. It really takes our traditional values, our Inuit values, into account when it comes to the path for conservation, food security and just having Inuit at the table to be able to express their opinions and where we should be going in that direction. It’s gotten a lot better with respecting Inuit rights and our knowledge. I think it is going in the right direction.
Senator McCallum: Okay. Is there anything that you would want to see added to what is happening? You can even send in information on that, any guidance you could give us on how to ensure that it is Indigenous led and respectful of your principles of free, prior and informed consent. That’s all I’ll say for now. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question. Since the Montreal biodiversity COP last year, I have been very worried about our migratory birds, insects and marine mammals. Could Ms. Salomonie or Professor Norris talk to us about the state of and the role of these marine parks or other parks in maintaining the paths that these migratory species use? For example, Ms. Salomonie, where are the paths for the migratory species around the places where you live, and Professor Norris, the same with the insects and the birds.
Ms. Salomonie: Just to clarify, you are asking about what migratory animals are within our area?
The Chair: Yes. Have you seen any change, an increase or decrease?
Ms. Salomonie: The migratory animals that we have within our area, of course, are the whales, beluga, seals, narwhal, polar bear. Many species within Nunavut are located around Tallurutiup Imanga, and with some increased activities, especially around shipping, Inuit have noticed maybe a decrease in some of the migratory animals that are coming through certain parts of Tallurutiup Imanga. With the establishment of Tallurutiup Imanga, we can start regulating some of the activities going on in our area, but this is what Inuit wanted, and that’s why we advocated so passionately for the protection of the waters around Tallurutiup Imanga.
The Chair: Okay. You spoke about research inventory, monitoring. Will this park creation allow you to follow these species and have the means and resources to report the changes in the next years?
Ms. Salomonie: Yes, we already have. The full-time hunter employees we have report on what they are seeing in real time. They report it back to our office, but also we work very closely with the local hunters and trappers associations within the communities, and just local community members in general, about what they are seeing, what they are observing, what they have noticed, ice conditions, for example. They report those things back to the communities because the ice conditions are very important to know because it’s also about the safety of our hunters and community members.
We are collecting this data within our office, and the Tallurutiup Imanga is fairly new, and so we’re learning sort of as we go and what other research and monitoring methods we can use to improve the resources that our people have in the communities.
The Chair: Thank you. Professor?
Mr. Norris: Yes, thanks. To address your kind of broad question about migratory birds and insects, it’s been estimated that we have lost about 3 billion birds since 1970 in North America. That’s a lot. Many of those birds are migratory. Many of the birds go elsewhere, outside the spring and summer months, many to Central America, South America, the Caribbean. We are also in an insect apocalypse, that is, a decline in insects worldwide. It’s not necessarily in every location, but in several well-documented places there has been a decline in insects. That’s been linked to several things, including the application of pesticides, of course.
Do parks effectively conserve species? That is a big question. It is a good one. It is something that we have been quite interested in, as well as other research groups, about how we effectively monitor protected areas, including national parks.
It’s very difficult for a number of reasons. If we look at migratory animals, they may be using parks for only part of their annual cycle. Generally, I would say that protected areas in Canada tend to be situated in key locations. They may be a key breeding location for one or a group of species. They may be locations that migratory animals use as refuelling stopover sites as well, such as Point Peele, for example.
Monitoring the effectiveness of already-established parks and new parks requires, in a rigorous way, some sort of control, and that is monitoring unprotected areas as well. It’s really not enough to just monitor a protected area. You have to have some sort of design which you can compare.
I would say, in general, if we look at the hundreds of studies that have attempted to look at the effectiveness of protected areas in terms of conserving biodiversity, probably a majority of them have found that protected areas do a good job or have a positive influence on protecting biodiversity, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t need more of them. We absolutely do. As a country, we have about 15% protected areas. Of course, the broad target is 30% by 2030.
I have a lot to say on this. I could keep going, but I won’t take up too much of your time.
The Chair: I appreciate that because we are receiving the minister after you.
One of my questions was going to be: What are the criteria for choosing areas for protection? Of course, we want to protect the areas where Indigenous people are, and I understand completely, but we have another crisis, which is the biodiversity loss.
Mr. Norris: Yes.
The Chair: I was wondering if you could give us some idea of the criteria with respect to biodiversity that should be used in order to protect some areas that will belong to this 30% protection.
Mr. Norris: Once again, it’s something I could go on about.
The Chair: If it’s too long, you can always send it to us.
Mr. Norris: I’m good at being brief.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Norris: I don’t specifically know the criteria that the government uses to select national parks, but I can say that they are generally less nimble than land trust organizations that tend to be privately owned. Other players in the protection of protected areas in Canada are private land trusts and NGOs.
We have analyzed species diversity in private protected areas and government-protected areas. It’s a bit of a wash. Private protected areas tend to have higher species diversity currently, but they are more nimble. They tend to be able to set up smaller protected areas than the government wants to. Because of that and because they can form agreements with private land owners as well, they are better able to target high-diversity areas.
The government tends to come in with larger areas, and they do a good job, generally, of selecting the right areas. I don’t know the politics behind it, though.
You have two major players there. Of course, the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, or IPCAs, have increased quite a bit in the last five to ten years. They will play a major role if we ever do meet the target of 30%. The IPCAs will play a major role in that.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator McCallum: When we look at the definition in the bill of “traditional land user,” there is a list of individuals who use that land. The only community that is named is the NunatuKavut Community Council. Is your name in any of these bills? Senator Sorensen, I don’t know where —
Senator Sorensen: No, I can’t —
Senator McCallum: I don’t see your name anywhere in any of this as being a traditional land user. There are quite a few parks in this. I’m a bit mixed up as well. Why are the rights holders’ names not listed on this bill? Can we look into that?
Senator Sorensen: We’ll have to ask the writer of the bill.
Senator McCallum: Okay. I’ll get back to you on that.
The Chair: We will keep that also as a question for Minister Guilbeault.
Senator McCallum: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your answers. It has been a very interesting discussion.
[Translation]
We’ll proceed with the second panel now. We welcome the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The minister is here with Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, and Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning, both from Parks Canada.
[English]
Welcome, minister, and thank you for being with us. There are 10 minutes reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.
Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear on Bill S-14, the protecting Canada’s natural wonders act, which was tabled in the Senate on October 19, 2023.
I would like to respectfully acknowledge that the lands on which we are located are part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
Honourable senators, since December 2021, it has been my privilege to serve as Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for Parks Canada. I join with Parks Canada team members in taking pride in the work they do every day.
I would beg your indulgence for a brief look back at history. The first national park in Canada — Banff —was established in 1885, almost 140 years ago.
[English]
Twenty-six years later in 1911, what is known now as Parks Canada was established as the world’s very first national service organization dedicated to parks. Ever since, Parks Canada has been a leader in protecting and presenting treasured natural and historic places.
[Translation]
Today, they administer a vast network of cultural and natural heritage places that includes 171 national historic sites, 47 national parks, five national marine conservation areas and one national urban park. There is a tremendous history and record of achievement in this organization.
[English]
Unfortunately, and Parks Canada would be the first to acknowledge this, there are also negative aspects of our country’s history where profound lessons have been learned. The regrettable reality is that when some of these places were established Indigenous peoples were separated from their ancestral lands, ice and waters. Many Indigenous voices were silenced and connections were severed by the creation of some parks that resulted in intergenerational harm through loss of Indigenous knowledge, cultures and identities. Today we are committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. Parks Canada administers a significant number of federal lands and waters, nearly all of which have been traditionally used by Indigenous peoples. As such, Parks Canada is uniquely positioned among federal organizations to demonstrate real leadership in renewing and strengthening relationships and walking the path of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
In other instances of park establishment, legal expropriation of residents was used as the means to establish or enlarge national parks and national historic sites. The creation of places like Kouchibouguac, Forillon and Cape Breton Highlands national parks as well as the Fortress of Louisbourg and Alexander Graham Bell national historic sites was tragically done through expropriation. This action, though legal at the time, left scars on the local communities. We have recognized these means of park establishment as wrong, and Parks Canada’s contemporary and current approach to protected area establishment does not resemble the historical approach.
[Translation]
Today, national parks, national urban parks, and national marine conservation areas are established only in cooperation, collaboration, and consultation with Indigenous partners, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, industry, and stakeholders.
Furthermore, Parks Canada’s use of expropriation was abandoned in the early 1970s. In fact, ever since the Canada National Parks Act was amended in 2000, it has specifically prohibited the use of expropriation as a means of establishing or enlarging national parks.
[English]
Honourable senators, all of this is pertinent to today’s discussions because Bill S-14 reflects this modern approach to establishing and expanding protected areas. Bill S-14 is the final step in a process that, in some cases, included many, many years of consultation, collaboration, negotiation and relationship building.
Bill S-14 enshrines in legislation the establishment of a new national park reserve and a new marine conservation area. It also formally expands the boundaries of seven existing national parks and one national park reserve. These lands are already managed or under the administration of Parks Canada. However, until these new areas and the lands within the expanded boundaries are formally included under the schedules of Parks Canada statutes, they are not legally considered part of that protected area. As such, they do not benefit from the protections offered by the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and associated regulations. Parks Canada is limited to relying upon a patchwork of provincial and federal legislation to manage and protect these lands. What Bill S-14 does is ensure that they receive the full protections of those Acts and their associated regulations. This legislation is the final, critical step to ensuring that these lands are protected for current and future generations.
The process of consultation and engagement on these parks has been concluded. Their collective area of more than 12 million hectares has already been counted towards Canada’s conservation targets to conserve at least 30% of our lands and waters by 2030. What Bill S-14 does is deliver on the Government of Canada’s commitments to permanently protect these places.
To continue progress towards conservation targets, the Government of Canada has committed to establishing 10 new national parks and 10 new national marine conservation areas in the next five years. Further, we have committed to working with Indigenous communities on co-management agreements for these new protected areas.
Additionally, the 2021 federal budget funded the creation of a network of up to six national urban parks by 2025, each of which would be created in collaboration with willing partners and designed, in each unique case, to remain respectful of jurisdiction. Looking to the future, there are many opportunities to bring forward legislation to anchor the new network of national urban parks. While national urban parks can be designated more quickly using a policy framework, subsequent legislation could provide a stronger and more enduring framework. We anticipate that in due course, we will bring forward and develop the legislation framework to ensure the protection is permanent.
Parks Canada continues to be at the forefront, actively working with partners — including Indigenous governments and organizations — across the country to advance the creation of these new protected areas. Therefore, honourable senators, what Bill S-14 also does is demonstrate to current and future partners that the Government of Canada will stand behind its commitments. It demonstrates that we will do the work required to enshrine these special places in legislation to ensure their protection for all of time. With the increasing effects of climate change and biodiversity loss, Indigenous peoples, environmental organizations, local communities, provincial and territorial governments and the Canadian public expect to see progress in the protection of our natural spaces.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, what you have before you is the opportunity to show that the Government of Canada is listening. Ensuring that these lands can benefit from the highest level of protection is more important than ever. This legislation is the critical step to ensure Parks Canada has the authority and tools required to protect these lands for current and future generations.
I encourage you to support Bill S-14.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today and to speak. I would welcome the opportunity to address any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for your introductory remarks. We’re going to go to questions.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome back, Mr. Minister. Canada adopted the Aichi targets at COP 10 in 2010, pledging to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. You mentioned this in your introductory remarks. If I understand correctly, the proportion of protected lands has reached 13.5%.
You talked about plans to establish other national parks and whatnot. Will the proposed new national parks enable you to achieve the objective? Will we hit the 30% target, or is that unlikely?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, Madam Senator. I’d just like to clarify that the Aichi targets were for 2020. The 2030 targets are the ones we adopted at COP 15 in Montreal last year.
With respect to what we’ve done so far, the percentages are about what you said. Let me give you an example. In the past month, we announced a new agreement with British Columbia and the First Nations of British Columbia to protect 30% of B.C.’s lands and coastal waters. We also reached an agreement with the Government of Northwest Territories and NWT First Nations, as well as with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, the QIA, in Nunavut.
These agreements will protect another one million square kilometres of Canada’s lands and coastal waters. That’s about four times the size of Great Britain. These projects aren’t in the database yet because the agreements haven’t yet been finalized.
We will probably achieve the 20% objective for lands and waters by the middle of 2024, and we’re on our way to achieving our 25% objective by 2025. That’s an interim objective we set for ourselves. It’s not part of the Kunming-Montreal global framework, but it is a milestone on the way to 30%.
The short answer to your question is that we don’t yet have all the projects we need to achieve the 30% goal, but we’re getting there.
I just want to point out that, when we came to power in 2015, Canada wasn’t even protecting 1% of our oceans and coastal spaces. Today, we’re at 15% and will probably hit 20% next year. The growth curve has been phenomenal.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let’s imagine we’re in the future. Is Gatineau Park one of the places you’re thinking of making into a national park? For a long time now, people have been saying the park is being abused, over-used and under-protected because it doesn’t have the same protections national parks get. When will a decision be made about that?
Mr. Guilbeault: The National Capital Commission is responsible for Gatineau Park. The park does not enjoy any legal protection. Parks Canada is in talks with the NCC about a partnership for Gatineau Park. Mr. Campbell, can you tell us more? You’re involved in those talks.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: The important thing to remember about Gatineau Park is that it’s already protected under the National Capital Act, but it doesn’t have the same protection as a national park.
One thing the minister mentioned is that the national urban parks policies may be a way to obtain additional protection. We’re discussing that with the NCC, whose board should also be in favour. The NCC is seeking advice.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There’s hope.
Mr. Campbell: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel, for appearing today. I have questions on two parks. The first is in Labrador. As I begin, I would like to recognize and welcome the Innu nation representatives who are with us in the gallery, including former federal minister, The Honourable Peter Penashue.
This question is about the Akami-UapishkU-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve and the definition of traditional land use. You may know that there are disputes and conflicts in this area, and I’m not making a judgment on the validity of the claim or the dispute itself, but what measures, either through this bill or existing mechanisms, are there to address unintended consequences or claims whose validity is in dispute, and in particular the decision on the establishment of cabins under the approval of the superintendent as a backdoor entrance for organizations that want to have a claim but may not have a valid claim?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you for your questions, senator. It is in fact, a difficult issue, and one must make a difference between traditional land users and rights holders, and there is a world of difference between the two of them. The bill you have in front of you is our best attempt at trying to find solutions to these issues, but I’ll be the first one to recognize that maybe we didn’t get the right balance and would be happy to discuss potential amendments that would be needed if it were recognized that we didn’t quite get that balance right.
Senator Wells: Thank you, yes. It’s important to note we say, “best efforts.” Maybe there is nothing that’s perfect, but with best efforts there can be unintended consequences and what might work in Saskatchewan may not work in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Are there dispute resolution mechanisms in place that could address this, or would we simply do it by amendment?
Mr. Guilbeault: In terms of the bill, we could be thinking of amendments to the bill.
Senator Wells: Okay, thanks. The second part that I would like to mention — and you mentioned it in your opening remarks, minister — is the Kouchibouguac. Of course there is a long and sad history on that in northern New Brunswick where approximately 215 families and over 1,200 individuals were affected, and I do want to mention the seven communities that were essentially shut down by the heavy-handedness, at the time, of Parks Canada. It’s Claire-Fontaine, Fontaine, Rivière au Portage, Kouchibouguac, Guimond Village, Cap St-Louis and Saint-Olivier.
For colleagues and those listening, these residents were mostly descendants of the Mi’kmaq and Acadians whose ancestors had been deported. When they hear about possible changes to the act that might affect the boundaries or the rights of the people who live there — and you had mentioned there will be consultations before any expropriation — we know back in the late 1960s it was forced and certainly under-compensated.
You mentioned there are processes in place for expropriation with consultations, but what about mechanisms for or what about the possibility of encroachment — not necessarily expropriation but encroachment — or restrictions of use that are currently enjoyed by the people?
Mr. Guilbeault: What we try to do now, and that’s what I was trying to explain, is if we are to expand the boundaries of existing parks and there is a recognition that there has been traditional use by local communities, or in the case of Indigenous nations or communities and rights holders, we find mechanisms to accommodate those so that people can continue to enjoy the benefit of these sites.
Senator Wells: Might that also include expropriation, though?
Mr. Guilbeault: As I said in my remarks, expropriation is not a measure we use anymore. In terms of specific mechanisms, I can turn to Mr. Campbell who is in the weeds on this, literally.
Senator Wells: I’m happy to hear from Mr. Campbell, but these people are rightly sensitive because of what happened in the past, including deportations and inadequate compensation in the expropriation process. I recognize that expropriation has changed since then, so now I’m asking about encroachment and other things that would have restrictions on traditional uses.
Mr. Guilbeault: My answer would remain the same. We tried to negotiate with traditional users continued access and enjoyment of the sites we are trying to protect or the expansion of the parks.
Mr. Campbell: A couple of things. First, we are specifically excluded from using expropriation, so legally that’s not a tool. It would all be on a willing buyer willing seller basis, a provincial transfer, or that which a rights holder may, in fact, have and want to transfer under both their own and federal protections. So that would be the only way that it could move through.
However, where we are looking at individuals, where that happens and there is traditional use within that area, that’s a separate section often within different parks that describes traditional users, and I want to make the distinction very clear. Section 40 of the National Parks Act already protects right holders, so every right holder across the country is protected for their ability to have traditional use within that outside of the Constitution, which obviously gives that protection as well. But that’s right within the National Parks Act. We aren’t amending that today, so this act would not be about that amendment. Traditional right holders, as are described, are those where they are a traditional user but not a rights holder.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, minister.
Mr. Guilbeault: My apologies, senator. We have a vote in the House of Commons. Would you allow me minute and a half so I can do it right now?
The Chair: Yes, please go ahead.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, minister, for coming today, and congratulations on bringing forward another uncontroversial bill to the Senate.
I asked a dangerous question of some of the witnesses in the previous panel, and that was: Is there anything that could be improved in this bill? I got a very compelling answer, and I want to put it forward to you now because I’m thinking of making an amendment to the bill, in fact, based on what I heard.
Dr. Lem advised that section 32, the mitigation of environmental damage, could be improved. There is a duty that the superintendent “may” report. She wants to change it to “shall,” making it a strong, positive duty on the officers. I support that. I’m going to look into it further, but more importantly, she had an advisement to create a citizen enforcement mechanism in clause 32, which would create what I would call an extramural environmental officer. It would engage the citizens who are close to and in the vicinity of the park and know the park in actually enforcing anything they saw as being potential pollution of the park. That’s the second thing that I would bring up. I would like to know the answer to that. Would you support that if we put that forward?
Second, I commend you for expanding the Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan. We did hear about the Rouge National Urban Park. Is that a model for the rest of Canada?
You have six urban national parks that you are hoping to bring into the network soon. Is there an urban national park plan for Saskatchewan? If not, why not? What’s the criteria that you use when you identify, acquire and integrate new parks into the existing national park mechanism, urban parks.
Mr. Guilbeault: The last part of your question?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator. As I said earlier, when we table a bill — I believe this is my sixth or seventh bill as minister — we try to do our best to find the right balance. We usually don’t, and that’s why those processes here in the Senate and the House of Commons are so important with stakeholders and, in this case, with Inuit and Indigenous nations and rights holders to work together to make it better, to improve it.
It is difficult for me to comment specifically on the proposal you are making, but the commitment that I can make is that we’re very open to looking at amendments. As we do for the bill, you think of something and then you have to look at what the positive impacts of doing this are. Are there any negative impacts, pros and cons? You then come to the conclusion: go, no go. I’m very happy to do this on the two proposals that you have mentioned.
Thank you for your comment regarding the Grasslands National Park. Grasslands are a Canadian wonder. It’s a story that’s not told often enough. They play such a critical role in our ecosystem, and I’m very happy we can move on this one.
In terms of a national urban park for Saskatchewan, we are having the discussion for a national urban park in Saskatoon. I’m hoping that we can bring this project to completion.
Senator Arnot: What stage is it at? I know it takes a long time to plan these things — maybe years — but I’m just wondering what stage it’s at.
Mr. Guilbeault: Technically speaking, prefeasibility. The municipality is very interested, and the province a little bit less. They are concerned that it’s a way for the federal government to take over these lands. It’s not. We’re trying to sort this out.
Senator Arnot: I support that, and I’ll do what I can to ensure Saskatchewan gets an urban national park.
Mr. Guilbeault: It’s greatly appreciated, senator. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell: The third part of your question is if Rouge is a model for all other national parks.
When we look at the Rouge National Urban Park, it’s certainly a wonder and an excellent model. It serves as a model but not necessarily the only model. As we are looking at moving ahead with, for instance, the Meewasin in Saskatoon, you would not need to have ownership of the land at the federal level. The same is true when we’re looking at Edmonton and the national urban park in the valley in Edmonton. You wouldn’t have to have federal ownership of the land, whereas the Rouge National Urban Park Act is designed in such a way, separate from the Canada National Parks Act but still designed in a way that the ownership is federal.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I am going to go back to what Senator Wells had spoken about, about traditional land users and the people who are included in there.
You said there is a difference between land users and rights holders, that the rights holders are the rightful land users. When we look at the NunatuKavut Community Council, we were told last time that they are not recognized as section 35 rights holders, and yet the rights holders are not anywhere on this bill and that it is an oversight.
Canada is now proposing to add a new class of traditional land holders by including this group and that the recognition of traditional land users was contemplated in the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding to establish the park between Canada and the Province of Newfoundland, and it was accepted by the Innu Nation. The class of traditional land users was to be limited to those meeting the criteria set out in (c) to (g) of the definition.
The Innu Nation has a concern about this. I don’t know how you would look at correcting that, but there is a gentleman there, as I said.
The other question I have is about land claims. There are existing land claims in the park. How will these be addressed while this is happening?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator. These are complex issues. As I said earlier, what we presented to you was our attempt at finding the right balance. Maybe we didn’t. As I said earlier, if we need to amend the bill to correct this, I am very open to doing this, working with you and others so that we can find that right balance.
Mr. Campbell: We have an interim agreement between ourselves and the Innu Nation around the claim for the Nunatsiavut government. There is a full agreement. That’s the northern end of the park.
As the minister said, if we didn’t get it right, we certainly are pleased to and will continue to meet with rights holders.
One last thing, as the minister mentioned, we aren’t amending section 40. It is not proposed to be amended. It already includes all of the rights holders within section 40 of the Canada National Parks Act as it exists today.
Senator McCallum: With section 40 and this, it seems to be in conflict. Is it? You have the rights holders in section 40 and the non-rights holders in this one.
The Chair: Could you mention the section you are referring to?
Senator McCallum: Under “traditional land user,” the definition. It is on page 8 of the bill.
Mr. Guilbeault: It was certainly not our intention to try and create a perception of contradictions between the two. Again, if by reading this you and others come to the conclusion that there is an appearance of contradiction, we’re happy to work with you to correct that.
Senator McCallum: Thank you so very much. I’ll go on second round.
Senator Sorensen: Merci. Thank you for being here, minister. Lovely to see you. I have two quick questions for you, I think. Bill S-14, just to confirm, involves lands that Parks Canada is currently I’ll use the word administering, and I’m curious for you to reiterate and elaborate on what are the current activities and issues in those lands that have caused concern and perhaps a greater need for added protection? Comments like illegal harvesting, dumping have been occurring.
Mr. Guilbeault: There may be instances where we’re concerned with some activities. Fundamentally, the concern with these lands that are administered by Parks Canada is they don’t have the same protection as a national park. Our ability sometimes to intervene or manage them in the same way we would manage a national park is more limited. I don’t know if Ms. Cunningham or Mr. Campbell would like to add anything to this.
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning, Parks Canada: Sure, I’ll jump in. We referenced the Rouge National Urban Park as an area in which through the housekeeping associated with this bill we have strengthened the infractions around pesticides or dumping. Those are the types of activities we are seeing in the urban context with our national urban park locations like the Rouge.
But as the minister has expressed, the best protection we can offer these lands is really under the Canada National Parks Act. It is where ecological integrity is first and foremost and where we have the strongest enforcement measures against things like illegal harvesting and those types of activities we do see.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. Second, minister, could you or your colleagues here discuss a little bit about the Indigenous Guardians program and what the current relationship is between the Indigenous Guardians program and the parks that are touched by this bill?
Mr. Guilbeault: I was talking about how important grasslands are in the Canadian ecosystem but how it’s a well-kept secret. The same could be said about the Indigenous Guardians program. It is an incredible Canadian Indigenous success story. It’s a program through which the federal government has started supporting Indigenous communities for things that they have been doing for millennia. The federal government is supporting Indigenous Guardians in 25% of First Nations in Canada, and we recently signed an agreement with the Indigenous Guardians network so they will administer the program.
Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada are no longer involved in the decision making of what projects are funded. It’s an uncommon approach for the federal government not to tell people what they should be doing but rather they tell us what they want to be funded in their communities. There is a diverse array of activities funded through the Guardians program based on the needs and wishes of communities. Parks played a very important role and continues to play an important role in the development of the program. It’s now kind of taking off on its own. I don’t know if either of you would like to add anything to the Guardians program?
Mr. Campbell: The unique element of the Parks Canada piece of the Guardians program is the fact that it’s really nation‑to-nation and in most establishment agreements now, so as new places are being established, the Guardians program is a fundamental part of the agreement. As we move forward, that will just be the manner in which national parks, national marine conservations, national urban parks will be administered. It won’t be an add-on or anything additional; it will be the way of how we move forward.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, minister. Great to have you here today.
I appreciated you addressing and referring to the decision that Parks Canada made to stop using expropriation as a tool, although I’m not necessarily against expropriation in principle if people are properly compensated. That’s the other side of the equation. That’s what I want to speak to you about. You mentioned the Fortress of Louisbourg. Louisbourg is my hometown. My grandmother was expropriated in 1965, ’66. She was 85 years old. She got $4,000 for the 62 acres of land that ran from the base of the harbour to Point Wolfe. Beautiful land. There was title to it going back to 1794, and she is not the only one. It happened to a lot of people.
I don’t think you can compensate people who lost everything 60 years ago. Most of those people are gone. I don’t think it’s realistic, but you can make a commitment to the community. The damage that was done to the community is extensive. There is a 60-acre site for the fortress, and we were happy to see it built. It helped me get through university. I worked there for five summers in archeology. It was great. As somebody who loves history, it was great to see the fortress be built. However, what Parks Canada did, instead of expropriating 60 acres, they expropriated 16,000. They destroyed the communities of West Louisbourg. The fortress itself was 40 years old. West Louisbourg was over two centuries old. They expropriated West Louisbourg, they expropriated Deep Cove, they expropriated and Kennington Cove, and there was an eight-mile run from Louisbourg to Gabarus, which was its closest bigger community.
What Parks Canada did after they got the provincial government to expropriate, they stopped maintaining the road from Louisbourg to Gabarus deliberately. Back then, 60 years ago, many of the feeder roads were dirt roads. They got to the point where the bridges were falling apart and the road was falling apart and then the announcement came that they were shutting the road. It was all arbitrary and had no community consultation.
They turned my hometown, which was a well-established seaport, into an outport, and it’s still an outport. You can’t get any services after the fortress closes. The banks are gone. The credit union is gone. You can’t get gas. You might like that, but you can’t get gasoline. It’s ridiculous.
Back in the early 1990s, money was declared to build a road. It was secured and then it was abandoned. If you want to compensate that community, I would love for you to address what’s happened down there. It’s eight miles of road, 13 kilometres, about a million dollars a kilometre. If we can pay $50 billion for battery plants, why can’t we put $13 million or $14 million up to rebuild that road and reconnect the communities? It would make so much difference on the southeast coast of Cape Breton, and Cape Breton is a place with great economic challenges. It would help the entire community. I hope you consider that.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator, for this passionate intervention. Clearly, this is an issue very close to your heart. I can, certainly, commit to sitting down with Parks Canada officials to look at what we could do. You should know that Parks Canada and myself have been working really hard on getting funding for the maintenance improvement of infrastructure. Parks Canada manages quite an impressive array of infrastructure, whether it’s roads, dams and many others across the country, and there is a funding deficit we’re trying to solve. But I’m happy to sit down with Parks Canada officials and look into it.
I’m not anti-gasoline. I just think we should reduce our dependencies. I take the train between Montreal and Ottawa all the time, as does the senator. That train runs on diesel. We will continue using fossil fuels for some time. We are just trying to work on reducing consumption as much as we can, when it’s possible.
The Chair: Thank you. Before going to second round and giving the floor to Senator Wells, I would like to ask a quick question. I was very happy to be in Montreal last year during the COP 15 on biodiversity. I saw the excitement with the agreement, the 30x30 plan, which is part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and my question is about the criteria you used to determine who decides and where we put protected areas. I understand the surface, but I think biodiversity is very important. That’s the mass extinction of some of our species, and we just heard before you came about the incredible impact on migratory species.
Can you explain what the criteria are in deciding which areas to protect?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator. I think your question goes to the question of what balance we strike between quantity and quality. The answer is that it depends. For example, I spoke in my opening remarks about national urban parks. The reality of our urban environment across the country is that there is not a lot of very pristine nature left in our cities. So in the case of national urban parks, what we’re trying to do is look and see if there is a possibility of protecting something that is fairly intact. We just did that in Halifax with the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes, which was an area that had been protected over time without any specific legal status. We did that.
In many other instances, the purpose of the urban park will probably be to work on the restoration of the natural environment if we can’t protect something that’s pristine.
For some of the larger conservation areas, whether they are national parks or other forms of conservation, one of the first criteria now is that these projects must be Indigenous-led. I can’t think of any new conservation projects that we are working on where the Indigenous nations or communities are not at the table. In some cases, they’ve been working on these projects for many years.
I announced recently — and spoke about this earlier — the Project Finance for Permanence, or PFPs, in the Northwest Territories as well as in Nunavut. These are projects that these communities or nations have been working on for many years — sometimes decades.
The goal of our network of protected areas is to try and protect as much as we can of the rich biodiversity of Canada. It varies quite a bit from region to region. That is one of the goals we try to pursue.
In terms of the specific criteria, do you want to add anything? That’s the 20,000-foot answer, I suppose.
Ms. Cunningham: I will just add that the Parks Canada system plan is the basis under which we have divided the country into bioregions. They are about ecological and biodiversity. We strive to find representative examples in each of those bioregions. There is a set of criteria associated with that. As the minister has mentioned, there are other factors at play and certainly other pristine tracts of land that include Indigenous, partner-led protected lands as well.
The Chair: The reason for my question is that you know the story in Quebec of the caribou. It is sad. It is endangered. There are others. Therefore, I think it would be interesting to have some consideration of loss of biodiversity and migratory species in the criteria you use, so we are more efficient in the places we choose to protect.
Mr. Guilbeault: That’s a good question, senator. When it comes to how we deal with species at risk, a recent report of the Commissioner of the Environment talked about the backlog we have federally in terms of identifying species at risk. We are trying to look at a new approach where, instead of looking at protecting a specific species, we need to be looking at protecting the ecosystem and the habitat.
The Chair: The habitat. Exactly.
Mr. Guilbeault: Certainly, there is clearly a link with the work Parks Canada is doing on conservation or, in some cases, restoration. We are trying to see how these things can be better aligned in a way that they have not always been in the past.
Senator Wells: My question in this round centres on the Innu Nation again. Again, the representatives are behind you. The Innu Nation played a central role in how the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve would be operated. They have an interim treaty agreement and an industrial benefits agreement. But the Innu Nation was not consulted prior to the introduction of this bill. I think it is an important consideration because that’s what leads to frustrations, and that’s what leads to disputes that could have been headed off before they occurred.
My question is simple. Why wasn’t the Innu Nation consulted on such an important part of what they are central to in Labrador?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you. As Mr. Campbell mentioned earlier, there have been ongoing discussions and consultations, not just on the preparation of this bill but on other aspects of conservation and land protection.
One of the challenges we face as a nation is that as we move forward in the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, for example, we have either parliamentary procedures, government procedures or cabinet procedures that have not yet been updated to reflect our desire to fully implement the UNDRIP.
As a minister, I can’t share a draft bill until it’s been tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons. I don’t have that authority because of cabinet privilege and because of parliamentary privilege.
As I said earlier, what we presented to you was what we thought was the best attempt to reflect the nature of those conversations. If we got it wrong, I’m happy to work on correcting this.
Senator Wells: I understand about cabinet privilege, but there are often — in fact, there are always — consultations with not only user groups but groups that are critical to the establishment of whatever the bill is. So to say that, well, you can’t share the bill because of privilege — there are provisions that are worked on in the development of the bill. Obviously, consultations always happen. They happen in a budget. There are always pre‑budget consultations, and that’s a bill in itself.
If you want to address disputes, wait until the dispute happens. If you want to prevent them, consultations would have been helpful, certainly in this case where it is very sensitive about rights, land use and disputes between groups that will be affected by the implementation of this bill.
Mr. Guilbeault: Again, senator, I have recognized the sensitive nature of these issues, and we have had conversations and consultations with Indigenous nations on this. What we presented was what we thought was the best landing zone. If it is not that, we can correct that.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: We are going back to that topic again because it’s very concerning to me that we have groups coming forward claiming Indigeneity because they have a First Nation, Métis or Inuit grandfather or grandmother four or five generations down, and they are claiming this Indigeneity. In our circle, we call this the last frontier — where the people are taking our identities, claiming our minds, claiming our bodies as First Nations, Métis and Inuit and going after our rights, lands, resources and benefits. As well, it seems the government is supporting this.
When we look back at this park, is Canada proposing to empower the superintendent to authorize cabin construction for personal use by anyone, when the 2015 MOU simply provided for existing cabins to be grandfathered? With this group that is not an established rights holder, 5,000 people will want to be putting in a cabin where right now there are 10 families.
What is the situation? Could you comment on the situation?
Mr. Guilbeault: To answer the first part of your question, senator, as Mr. Campbell pointed out earlier, this bill doesn’t change anything to section 40 of the Canada National Parks Act that recognizes rights holders in the creation or expansion of existing national parks.
In terms of the cabin issue itself, I will turn to one of you for existing versus new construction?
Mr. Campbell: Within what is looked at within the act is — again, coming back too, there are two groups — one, and as previously mentioned by Senator Wells, the group in the establishment agreement, there were, in fact, two different types of groups. There were those who were rights holders and those who were traditional land users.
In the traditional land user definition, one of the elements within that agreement was also the establishment of what was called a shared understanding agreement with the NunatuKavut.
Senator, coming back to you, that is where, potentially within that incorporated group, there could be many thousands of members. Where we need to continue that discussion with the Innu Nation is to look at that from a cabin perspective.
There would be cooperative and co-management, in fact, with the two rights holders groups. We would be in a position where the superintendent could, and I’m not — but it would be under the direction of the three groups together — sorry, the two rights holders groups and Parks Canada — I don’t want anybody to be confused about the three I am talking about — and the establishment of that.
Mr. Guilbeault: It is not a unilateral decision, to answer your question about the authority of the superintendent.
Senator MacDonald: Minister, you mentioned the government is going to expand parks. We are a big country, a big land mass. I think we could use more national parks, properly created.
You also mentioned marine sanctuaries; again, properly handled and in consultation with those who live and fish off the water, that is important. I do support it in principle. Can you give us an update on what is going on with the proposed marine sanctuary in Port Hilford, Nova Scotia, and what you know about it?
For the record, Port Hilford is the birthplace of Wilf Carter, Canada’s first international music star. I would like to see Port Hilford put back on the map with this marine sanctuary for whales.
Are you familiar with this project? Have you had any interaction with the people who are building or proposing this? Can you give us any update on it?
Mr. Guilbeault: I am not familiar with that project, senator. We could follow up with your office in writing on this to get you the right information. I don’t have it with me.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll get right into it so as not to waste a moment.
Let’s talk some more about Quebec. Recently, in March, the governments of Canada and Quebec announced their joint intention to begin the process to expand the boundaries of the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park. It is home to 2,200 species, some of which are vulnerable, such as the beloved beluga.
When will the park be expanded, and exactly what will you do to protect the belugas? There is a conflict between the region’s tourism needs and the belugas’ well-being. Will boats have to stay farther away? What’s the plan for humans and belugas?
Mr. Guilbeault: That’s a good question, Senator.
Depending on the project, a number of activities are allowed in protected marine areas. This may include fishing or even commercial fishing, as well as tourism and marine transportation, of course. The benefit of having conservation areas like these is that all activities have to prioritize conservation, and that’s totally different from what happens outside conservation areas. For example, commercial vessels have to slow down. There’s a code of practice for tourism and eco-tourism activities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There’s not enough yet, because the populations —
Mr. Guilbeault: It’s important to understand that we’re also seeing the impact of climate change on marine mammals in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Things are going to get worse before they get better, unfortunately.
However, that means we have to take that into account in our analysis of the impact of human activity.
Does this mean there should be less tourism, a lower speed limit for commercial vehicles and less tourism activity overall? All activities permitted within these areas must prioritize conservation. I think it’s great news that we’re expanding the protected area significantly.
It was a little weird because we have this marine park where there’s an imaginary line right in the middle of the St. Lawrence, and species such as belugas are protected on one side of it but not on the other.
Both the Government of Quebec and the federal government were completely in agreement about basing protection more on ecosystems than on imaginary lines.
Mr. Campbell can elaborate on that.
Mr. Campbell: We’re holding consultations with all the town representatives, all the Indigenous groups —
Mr. Guilbeault: Fishers’ associations —
Mr. Campbell: We’re going to consult all the industrial associations over the coming year. Then there’ll be feasibility studies.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I would also like to thank the Parks Canada senior officials.
Before we adjourn, I have a reminder for my colleagues.
[English]
Next week, there is a plan to hear from a panel in the first hour, then we will start the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill next Tuesday, if permission is granted.
Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)