Environment Committee on April 24th, 2012

[Rick Bates]

There are a number of things with connecting Canadians to nature. One is, of course, improving that level of conversation we have around development and conservation, so that we're speaking clearly and understanding clearly that there are trade-offs we need to make. When you're doing conservation, you're forgoing development; when you're doing development, you're forgoing conservation. That's a fact, and I think the more we can have adult conversations about that within the society, that's helpful to all of us. So that's one thing that would be helpful about connecting Canadians to nature.

But there are others as well. Just letting kids get outside and encouraging that play and learning outdoors where we take some of our education from theory to reality I think is helpful and fun. Conservation work can be an awful lot of fun, and I think to help instill that and to allow kids that opportunity to play is very helpful.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Davidson, what types of incentives should be available to private landowners to conserve habitats and secure migratory roots?

[Ian Davidson]

Thank you for the question. I'll respond in English, if you don't mind.

Your question was about what sorts of incentives could be provided, then, for people who own lands to encourage the conservation of species, if I understand.

There are a number of different types of mechanisms for doing that. One of the ways we do that at Nature Canada is a program called Important Bird Areas. That program identifies the suite of globally important sites for birds and biodiversity across this country. There are about 600 of those.

One of the ways we try to recognize individuals is to engage the public. We call these “caretakers”, local community people who adopt a site. What we try to do is work with these communities and individuals at the site level and recognize the work they do. I think recognition is a huge part of the issue. Many people are undertaking conservation at many different levels, and often we don't get that pat on the back, if you will. We don't get recognized for the work we do.

So we believe strongly that recognition is important. We have local awards and provincial awards and national awards for individuals, for the caretakers, as I said.

In terms of other incentives, obviously there are the tax incentives. One of the things Nature Canada does is support a coalition called the Green Budget Coalition. Both of my colleagues...or at least Nature Conservancy is a member of that. One of the things we've been pushing collectively with our colleagues is for tax incentives for local property owners, particularly those who have endangered species on their properties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

And time has expired.

Mr. Sopuck, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bates, what's the weakness in the single species approach?

[Rick Bates]

Well, there are several. It costs a lot of money and it typically isn't ecosystem-based. You can spend a lot of time and money on one species while the entire system around you collapses.

So it's certainly a risk. I think a person has to head into either approach, either an ecosystem approach or a species approach, heads-up. You want to do a little bit of balance.

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

Yes. It seems to me, shouldn't the goal be the conservation of ecosystem processes as the ultimate goal, and multiple species assemblages? Often the single species approach can conflict with other species.

As you pointed out, and I think quite wisely, it could actually inhibit the conservation of ecological processes.

[Rick Bates]

I think the key is balance. You can be spending so much time looking at the system that you begin to lose species. When you lose a couple of key species, you can quickly lose a system.

So through a balanced approach I think you can retain both. You can spend some time on the most vulnerable species—not every individual species, but a couple of the most vulnerable that are perhaps representative of a certain type of habitat within a system—as well as look at the overall ecosystem.

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

Yes. Something I'm very keen on personally is a national wetland conservation program. Again, if you conserve the wetlands or restore wetlands, the species will come—a kind of “if you build it, they will come”—with all the attendant ecological functions that wetlands provide.

Mr. Bates, you talked about connecting Canadians with nature. Should active programs in that regard be part of a national conservation plan? I'm thinking of mentoring programs for kids, to take them out in nature. Should that be part of a national conservation plan when programming is developed?

[Rick Bates]

I think it's helpful, yes, absolutely, for a long-term ethic around conservation in society, particularly among new Canadians. We have many new Canadians who don't get an opportunity to be exposed to nature in the same way that people who grew up here have.

So I think it's helpful. Do I think it's something that government needs to spend an awful lot of time and money on? Probably not.

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

Okay. The reason is that your federation is composed of Canada's main hunting and fishing groups, and many of them have youth hunting and fishing programs. As somebody who got started in a conservation career when I caught my first fish at age four, I think the sustainable use of fish and wildlife resources is often neglected in these politically correct times. I think active programming to get young people out hunting and fishing will start many people on the conservation path. So I think that's something we want to look at.

Mr. Lounds or Mr. Bradstreet, would you support a broad incentive-based ecological goods and services program on the agricultural landscape, and what form would that take?

[John Lounds]

I think we have actually been supportive of that. We don't do that ourselves.

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

Right. I understand that.

[John Lounds]

Maybe Michael knows more about this than I do.

[Michael Bradstreet, Vice-President, Conservation, Nature Conservancy Canada]

The answer is yes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Okay.

Again, I'd like to make the point, because it's important, that Canada is the only industrialized country that does not have an ecological goods and services program on the agricultural landscape. Again, it's a terrific compliment to what the Nature Conservancy does and what other groups do.

Mr. Davidson, early in your presentation you painted a fairly bleak picture of wildlife. You made the blanket statement that “our wildlife is disappearing”. Do you really believe that? Many species may be declining, but many other species have increased tremendously over the last few years.

Don't you think it would be more appropriate to kind of do a net analysis before making a blanket statement like that? We can look at the white pelican, the cormorant, the bald eagle, the white-tailed deer, the coyote, the Canada goose, and many other species. To say that our wildlife is disappearing is a little bit over the top, don't you think?

[Ian Davidson]

Perhaps—depending on the suite of species you're looking at.

The one we've been focusing on—

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

I look at all of them.

[Ian Davidson]

All species. Okay. But let's say you were to look at birds. In May, I think, or in about three weeks, the State of the Birds report will come out, and it will identify that a majority of bird species across Canada are actually in decline.

Based on that, and probably related to the habitat issues they are facing both here in Canada and internationally—obviously birds move out of Canada, or at least 80% or 90% of them do—there are real issues with wildlife species.

That is primarily related to the birds, but I would say other species too are at risk.

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

I guess my point is that from a public policy perspective, you would want to make fairly detailed recommendations to us so that we can focus on the species of concern. Again, my caution is to just be careful about those kinds of blanket statements, because they're not that helpful from a public policy perspective when we want to zero in and actually develop programs.

I do agree with you that certain bird species, warblers in particular, are declining. Let's make sure we focus on that.

Mr. Davidson, you talked about the sage grouse and you talked about ranching and oil. I'm a little bit sensitive to that, because I represent a ranching constituency.

Extensive cattle ranching is one of the best friends that wildlife and biodiversity ever had. Would you agree with that?

[Ian Davidson]

Yes, I would. I guess perhaps it was taken a little bit out of context. We had some meetings last week to talk about this issue with CEPA, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

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

I've met those folks, yes.

[Ian Davidson]

It was to look at the real impacts of the oil and gas sector on the species. To my understanding, an emergency summit was held about three or four months ago to look at the plight of the species, and indeed it did look at the oil and gas sector primarily.

I guess my point was more bringing together the various stakeholders on the landscape, both pro and con in terms of the impacts to the species, and actually having a dialogue and determining specifically what can be done.

We do have a recipe, if you will, for what needs to be done. If we can bring the stakeholders around the table to actually do something, I think we can solve this situation very easily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

That's your time, Mr. Sopuck.