Environment Committee on March 27th, 2012

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

Mr. Wareham, in 2010, the David Suzuki Foundation concluded an agreement on the boreal forest.

Can you tell us what has become of this agreement? Is it going well or not?

[Bill Wareham]

It's been a challenge. We'll be honest. This is a big initiative. You can imagine, many jurisdictions, provincial governments, and first nations are very key in this.

When the agreement was signed, there was a need to do some reconciliation with first nations to build and respect their rights and interests, and have them feel they were part of the plan and that it accommodated their needs as well. I think that's an important message to everyone in the national conservation plan, that accommodating people's interests, whoever they are, in whatever form—municipal governments, first nations—is an important part of the mix.

Our experience is that having the multi-stakeholder dialogues and these opportunities to bring people together is absolutely key in building lasting solutions. Whenever we don't do that and we miss engaging people—first nations communities—it tends to come back and bite us and slow things down.

I would say that in the last couple of years there's been some good work rebuilding that stakeholder network, working with first nations, and recommitting some funding around the targets we're going to move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

Next is Mr. Sopuck.

You have seven minutes.

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

Thanks. I have a comment first. I listened very intently to all the presentations, and I was quite surprised at the lack of mention of natural resource communities and agricultural communities. I would strongly recommend that your organizations revisit your philosophy. Those are the communities I represent, and they're always left out of these kinds of discussions.

My question for Ms. Woodley deals with the protected areas. Don't you think that the focus on protected areas is somewhat limiting? Shouldn't the national conservation plan be about conserving essential ecological processes regardless of whether an area is so-called protected or not? Aren't we all about the ecological processes?

[Alison Woodley]

I think there's fairly clear evidence, both internationally and in Canada, that in order to conserve those important ecological processes, and the parts.... In order to protect healthy ecosystems we have to keep all the parts and the processes intact. In order to do that, I think there's pretty clear evidence that we need to both have these core areas of protected habitat, and also have them connected together and nested within a sustainable landscape.

Doing one or the other isn't going to work. We have to do them together. We have to do them in an integrated way, if we really want to achieve our goal of conserving healthy ecosystems—both the parts and the processes—into the future in order to sustain all of us and our human communities.

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

In your view, Ms. Woodley, are changed landscapes always degraded landscapes? I'm talking about human-caused change.

[Alison Woodley]

Are changed landscapes always degraded landscapes? If they have lost species, they are degraded. If they have lost integrity, then they are degraded at some level.

Obviously there's a full spectrum of degradation. Depending on what you mean by changed, if they have lost integrity, then they're degraded in some way.

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

In my constituency it's almost nothing but changed landscapes. What I would argue very vehemently is that in most of my constituency, ecological processes are being conserved.

For Ms. Barnett, don't you think that working landscapes should be the absolute top priority of the national conservation plan as opposed, for example, to putting lines on maps in remote areas? In terms of conservation gain, don't you think it's the working landscapes where we have the most to gain?

[Andrea Barnett]

I think generally speaking a good national conservation plan is going to be about using the right tool in the right circumstance. In some cases that's going to be a protected area and in a lot of cases—if you're asking Ducks Unlimited in terms of our core mandate—absolutely it's about the working landscape. I really think this is where the major paradigm shift needs to happen and this is where we need to go, absolutely.

I'm sorry if that didn't come across enough in our presentation. We're absolutely fixated on this as a core issue. For 74 years in Canada, the agriculture landscape and agricultural producers have been some of our primary partners. So absolutely, moving forward, that's where we need to go as a major focus, along with a bunch of other tools that are used appropriately, based on conservation responses.

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

I would strongly agree with that, but setting priorities is what governments do and we can't do everything, so I'm very pleased to hear you say that you agree with a focus on working landscapes, as I do.

In terms of working landscapes, would you say, Ms. Barnett, that there is quite a difference between the private-land working landscape versus the public-land working landscape? How would you approach each of them?

[Andrea Barnett]

Oh, that's a very big question. How much time do we have?

I think you need to look at goals and what some of the barriers to conservation might be on both bases, and I think we need to approach the different circumstances differently. If we're looking at crown land, grazing tenure, for example—I'm from the interior of British Columbia where there's lots of forestry and lots of ranching—looking at ways to enhance conservation there, you're going to be looking at a different regulatory mix, a different set of stakeholders, and a different set of interests. There are lots of conservation gains to happen there.

When you're looking at private land, absolutely, you're looking at a different regulatory environment, and most importantly, you're looking at how you provide incentives to landowners to act and manage in a way that enhances or protects the ecological values in that particular landscape. I think that's where the work is. We need to figure out how to make it easy for the people who steward the land to make the right decision. It should be easier to do that than to impact.

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

I couldn't agree more. The record is clear, though, that on the privately owned agricultural landscape, the incentive approach is the only approach that will deliver real conservation gains.

I have another question directed to Ducks Unlimited. I was quite surprised that in your presentation there was no mention of your core constituency, the anglers and the hunters. I find that quite surprising.

One of the things I certainly will be pushing for is that the sustainable use of fish and wildlife resources will be an integral part of Canada's national conservation plan. Why wasn't that a focus of your presentation, given that group provides most of your funds and is your founding constituency?

[Andrea Barnett]

Would you like me to answer that?

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

It's up to you.

[Andrea Barnett]

In putting together this presentation, we went from 30 pages down to five because of the 10 minutes. It's absolutely implied in terms of our organization, and perhaps it should have been underscored, but absolutely we need to provide due credit to our core supporters.

On the question of how to engage more conservation agents in Canada, I would really look to our existing core supporters, who are often hunters and anglers, and try to grow that and acknowledge the impact and the conservation gains that are directly attributable to that group of individuals.

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

Acknowledgment of the group that pioneered conservation I think is greatly appropriate.

[Andrea Barnett]

Absolutely.

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

Regarding—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, your time has expired.

Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses. Thank you for your comments about the need for strong environmental laws, co-benefits, and the need for monitoring and metrics and protecting our climate.

I'm going to be very specific, and Ms. Woodley, may I begin with you? Can you explain what Canada's commitments are nationally and internationally for marine protected areas, please?

[Alison Woodley]

I can explain some of them. I'm sure I won't get the full suite, and I'm sure Mr. Wareham will be able to fill in the details, because he's our marine expert at the table today.

There was an original commitment to complete networks of protected areas by 2012. We're obviously not going to get there. There is a renewed commitment to protect 10% of our oceans by 2020 under the Aichi targets, which are those signed in 2010 under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It was my understanding that we've protected 1% of that.

[Alison Woodley]

So far we are at 1%.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Can you tell us, please, how that compares internationally? What can we learn from what's being done internationally, such as in Australia, for example?

[Alison Woodley]

I think there are some interesting examples. Again, Mr. Wareham can fill in more details, I'm sure.

Australia has done some interesting things.

One of the challenges we face is that we tend to establish protected areas on land and in the oceans one at a time, and it takes a very long time. If you kind of line up one park or marine protected area at a time, it takes a very long time. The more efficient way to do it, and the more effective way to do it, is to use network planning to do it. Region by region, lay out plans for the areas that are most important to protect. How do they relate to each other, and how are they going to be connected together? Do that as one planning process, and then implement it as one process.

It's a much more efficient way, because you make much quicker progress. And it's a much more effective way, because you're looking at the bigger picture and are seeing how it all connects together.