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.

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?

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.

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.

There’s hope.

Absolutely.

[English]

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-Uapishk^U-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?

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.

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?

In terms of the bill, we could be thinking of amendments to the bill.

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?

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.

Might that also include expropriation, though?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, minister.

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?

Yes, please go ahead.