There is a total disconnect with what this means. It is that level of a disconnect that we have reached. We're going to have to start giving up some of our urban conservation ethic in our cities and we're going to have to start turning it over.
The next step for us is to start tearing down some of the signs and to invite people in. I've been in conversations when I worked with Robert Bateman to look at creating the Bateman trail system throughout 18 kilometres of ravines in the city of Toronto. I was in a meeting when the person who's the head of the trail said, “Hold on, let me get this straight; you want more people to use our trail? They're going to wreck it.”
That's for the sake of conservation. They're saying, “Let's not connect people through our urban natural spaces, because they're going to wreck it. We're going to have to maintain it.”
I wish we had this problem. We don't have this problem right now. We need to get more of them in there and we need to teach them about stewardship.
There's one other little point, which is that when it comes to what ecological restoration actually is, the cities I work in are a full climatic zone different from what they used to be. That's just the way it is. Every one of the cities across this country along this border where 80% of us live is a different zone from what it used to be.
What's our urban conservation plan for ash trees, for elm trees, for birch trees along there? We don't have one, because they're dead, so it has to be a shifted set of priorities, and we are not going to be able to even have native trees as successful urban street trees at the rate we're going. The only way we're going to be successful is if we have people who decide, “I own this, and I'm going to conserve it. I'm going to spend the time. I'm going to volunteer.” We don't have enough money anymore to even look after this stuff.
We create these parks and we create these settings so that people have a place to engage. It's now the only choice we have to actually go after the place they engage. Remember that roam rate, that 150 yards? If we don't create the space when and where they play, they will not get there. It doesn't matter if you're on the edge of a world biosphere reserve like the one near where I live; the kids aren't there. They're at their schools, and the schools are paved, predominantly, from tip to tail.
As a result, it takes six to eight hours for a typical teacher right now to get their kids to go and spend one hour outside, because they have to sign a raft of papers to engage their kids with nature because they can't do it on their school ground. It's time that we started to think about the places where our kids spend time and engage them there.
There are three levers that our government can pull. It's funny that you talk about urban nature, because you're not really in our cities. The federal government doesn't have a huge amount of jurisdiction there, but you have legislation as a tool, you have taxes, and you have funding.
In terms of legislation, I would like to see some of the “no child left inside” legislation that's starting to go through the U.S. so that every kid right across the country spends two hours outside every day. That pushes the parents outside. That pushes the kids outside. That pushes the teachers outside. As a result, they will be more healthy. They will be more intelligent. Yes; in fact, their IQs go up if you do this. They will get an experiential education that won't cost any of you a dime, but you'll look good.
Second would be tax credits, because you have taxes as a lever. I'd like to see tax credits for people who are increasing levels of biodiversity in our urban spaces where people connect, meaning our playgrounds, our parks, our hospitals, and our school grounds.
So the second thing is a tax credit. What you'll find if you actually increase the amount of stuff that happens here, in terms of the built environment, is you will end up with a bigger, better GDP. We'll no longer be taking plastic and steel that's produced in China, designed in California, where we take on the risks. You'll actually be producing a local economy-based solution to this, and the money stays here.
Finally, we need to aggressively fund two things. One is outdoor schools that are making a difference. There are two right now that are great examples. One is the North Vancouver Outdoor School. In order to graduate from North Vancouver school district, you have to spend a week out in nature at this school, and it's a gem. The next one you actually own, as our national government, and that is the Palisades out in Jasper, which is a brilliant place where people come from around the world to learn about how to do it right.
The last one is public-private collaborations, and that's the stuff that I directly work on.
You cannot do this by yourselves, as government, anymore. The money is not there. You need to collaborate with people who are in the cities, because you don't have a jurisdiction and you don't have a mandate there. You need to properly fund the collaborations that are going to get more people to engage in nature. Otherwise, we're not going to have the future conservationists, and all of us who have this understanding that who we are as Canadians is tied to the land are going to miss that.
The last little thing I'll say is that sometime you need to Google “Canada” and hit “images”. You will find all of the pristine stuff that we talk about conserving. You will not find that if you Google any other country. We have a limited window to take advantage of the way that we perceive ourselves. We need to get to work.
Thank you.