Environment Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Michael Keenan]

—I agree completely, and I think you expressed it better than I did.

On the second part of the question, our sense is that we are seeing in the country a natural expansion of the conservation agenda from beyond the traditional protected areas, which remains very important. It will be a key pillar going ahead towards bringing in and thinking about how we manage private lands, and in particular, how we manage working lands in order to advance conservation goals. Our sense, early on, is that this will be a key area of opportunity and advancement in progress in the context of a national conservation plan—not the only area, but absolutely a key area.

Finding those arrangements where you can combine the two activities is key, which is why we're very happy, for example, coming back to the issue of the home team. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada sees this as a positive element of an agriculture agenda, where you can manage your production on the working agricultural lands of the country in a certain way and you keep the production. You also advance the conservation goals.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Of course the corollary to this is that getting rid of legislation that threatens the ability of landowners in rural communities to make a living is also an important conservation priority, and changing from a regulatory approach like the Species at Risk Act to an incentive-based approach is what I will strongly be pushing for in the development of this national conservation plan.

In terms of the documents, the emphasis does seem to be on the drawing of lines on maps and keeping people out. I would make the point that biodiversity on working lands can actually be much better conserved than on these preserved lands. I am particularly struck by the example of Grasslands National Park, and people have to realize that the only reason those conservation values were maintained was because they were working landscapes under the active management of ranchers.

Would you make a comment on that?

[Michael Keenan]

I'd make a very general quick comment. I think our sense is that part of what will likely be new in the NCP is that it would be bringing in a much greater focus on working lands. We actually don't believe that it's an either/or proposition. We believe that both dimensions are actually useful and productive and you've just got to find the best, most productive, next step among the wide range of choices, whether it's working lands or protected lands.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

On the private land landscape, the regulatory approach to conservation has been an utter failure, which is one of the reasons that rural and agricultural communities have reacted so badly to this. I make the point that in the documents you put out there's a real lack of acknowledgement of rural agricultural and natural resource communities.

I took down the list of your key groups and categories. I did not see rural communities mentioned there. I did not see natural resource communities mentioned there. And I did not see farm groups. You probably want to put farm groups under industry, but agriculture is as much of a culture as it is an industry. I would urge that they be included. What I find in all these kinds of documents and discussions is that rural natural resource and agricultural communities are always forgotten, and that simply must change.

Regarding your points about connectivity, joining preserved areas, have you given any thought to the fact that in between these preserved areas there is often privately owned land, natural resource harvesting lands, lands of importance to rural economies, often managed sustainably? Don't you think that's an issue, the fact that people live in these areas you want to connect?

[Michael Keenan]

Thank you for that.

I should point out I confess I'm guilty of including agriculture into the industry groups. But the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association were participants in the minister's round table, and I think we'll treat them as a separate category in the future.

I think you raise a really good point and a really key point: that in terms of connecting natural spaces you're doing it in areas where people live and where people work and where people produce. I think one of the benefits for us is that a promising opportunity of the natural conservation plan is figuring out the collaborative arrangements whereby you can work with those stakeholders and figure out a way together where sometimes very small adjustments or changes, or just being aware of factors, can create a more conducive natural habitat.

I think one of the interesting things, and it's a great sort of contrast.... I was in Hamilton looking at Randle Reef, which is a contaminated sediment area that we're trying to pull together in a tripartite solution for the Great Lakes. Around the corner is Cootes Paradise, and then there's the Cootes to escarpment area, where a whole bunch of people have come together voluntarily and landowners have made marginal changes to how they manage their properties, which has created a natural ecosystem much more conducive to habitat. I think it's a great success story along the lines of what you're describing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately time has expired, Mr. Sopuck. You're going to have another chance in a little bit.

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I actually just wanted to pick up on some of the comments Ms. Leslie made going back to the scope and structure of the study with regard to participant listing and then some of the supporting information we've all talked about. I wanted to summarize that as we close off here and get your thoughts.

What I've taken from today is that if we were to group the types of participants we should be inviting or making sure we're touching on, I've got aboriginal organizations; private sector organizations, which includes industry trade associations—to my colleague's comments on making sure that we include them—agriculture, forestry, and natural resources; non-governmental organizations, so conservation groups and other non-government organizations as well. And we have federal government departments—and you had expressed the depth and the breadth, so we've got Agriculture, Fisheries, etc.; other levels of government, according to some of the comments that came up here, so provincial, urban, and rural municipalities as well; and then academia.

Do you think that's a good sampling, based on who you invited to the round table, and that if we have some people under each of those lists that would probably give a good cross-section on the issue?

[Michael Keenan]

I think that's a great group. I don't recall if you had said aboriginal organizations at first.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I did, right off the top.

[Michael Keenan]

You did. Okay, good. Excellent. I think that's a fantastic list.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Going into some of the supporting information that we've all talked about today, I just wanted to summarize the sorts of groupings we should be looking at: our international agreements under this topic; to Ms. Duncan's comments, an inventory of existing initiatives, both federally and provincially; and some of the federal strategic documents that are existing.

Mr. Keenan, you brought up the federal sustainability strategy. If we looked into those three key areas for supporting documentation, is there anything we're missing? Or are there any other categories of information we should be using as background?

[Michael Keenan]

I think it's included in the inventory of existing programs on the ground. It's the programs you're getting at, I assume.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Yes.

I know some of my colleagues have chosen to get into content today, but I really wanted to give you maybe just two minutes very briefly to provide some closing statements on scope and your thoughts around structure of discussion. It's just because we will be heading into that in a subcommittee shortly.

[Michael Keenan]

It's difficult to comment extensively, only because my initial reaction is that you framed that in terms of what you've proposed, and the list of questions and issues sounds like a pretty reasonable scope to start. It gives the breadth of bringing the ideas in.

I can't think, offhand, of any key group of stakeholders or experts who wouldn't be included in the categories that you've listed. Looking at our national-international commitments and our current activities is a very good way to ground it. I think one additional suggestion is to bring that same idea in as we bring the stakeholders in—What are your ideas? What are you doing—and bring in those two dimensions.

It seems like a pretty good thing. I can't think of anything to add or suggest, to be honest.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Okay, great.

With the time remaining, could you briefly outline, bullet-point level, the consultation activities that have happened to date, just so we can make sure we're not duplicating that on the front end?

[Michael Keenan]

Sure.

There have been fairly informal consultations to date. One of the key anchor points is the round table that the minister held in January, which has been a point of discussion here. Leading up to that, we've had some consultation, largely with conservation groups who were keen to talk to us about a national conservation plan, who were keen to offer their suggestions and perspectives. It was mainly the key national groups like the NCC, Ducks Unlimited, etc.

We've worked on organizing the home team to try to get those five departments thinking about this and getting excited about it. We've done that. That's obviously very backroom but important work. At both the ministerial level and the officials' level, we've engaged our provincial colleagues, both in the environment ministries and in the natural resource ministries—sometimes they're the same ministry, but in many provinces they're not—in terms of updating them about what we're thinking of doing, how we want to work collaboratively, and beginning to get ideas and suggestions from them. We're currently working to try to organize, more from an officials' level, a technical workshop on innovations in conservation. We can begin to look at what is out there for ideas, what is out there for pilot projects that somebody's tried, that look promising. And we can just start building, in our own offices, a better sense of what the potential majors are that could support a future vision.

As we move forward, though, the minister is keen to go from these informal discussions he's having to a higher-profile formal consultation. I imagine he'll be doing a speech at some time in the near future and kicking off a more formal engagement of key partners across the country.

In that context, obviously, the insights and advice of the committee would be very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Ms. Rempel for summarizing that material. I think that was a really good review.

I'll just say, again, I really hope you can table that information I've asked for.

I'm very interested in evidence-based policy, so I'm wondering if you can address one thing we haven't talked about: research. If all this good work is happening, I'd like to know about the monitoring. That's one piece we haven't mentioned here. What monitoring, what research--and should this be part of the plan?

[Michael Keenan]

When you say “monitoring and research”, what are you referring to?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm referring broadly to research. When you're--

[Michael Keenan]

Are you referring to conservation?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If we're putting in place a conservation plan—and there is eventually going to be a conservation plan, and we're going to implement it—I think research needs to be part of this overall structure. Right now we don't have that there.

[Michael Keenan]

It's interesting, because the sense we're getting from early conversations on national conservation is that part of the value is that you create a framework. We're a bit hesitant to declare the framework should be X because we don't think it's up to us to do that; we think that needs to work through the consultations. But as you create a framework and a sense of common purpose and collaboration, you bring together many different activities that aren't connected, and you can connect them around a common purpose or set of objectives, goals, targets, principles, etc.

We haven't mentioned it, but one of them is research, quite honestly. A tremendous amount of research on ecosystems happens within Environment Canada, and a tremendous amount happens across the country in academic institutions. Just simply aligning that and having that contribute is a major step forward, without getting maximum value from what we're already doing in research and monitoring. We're hopeful that this can be worked in to be part of that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

We should add that to our framework.

[Michael Keenan]

Sure.