Environment Committee on May 15th, 2012

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Page.

I would now like to ask Ms. Nowlan a question.

You said that it was important to aim high with our conservation objectives and targets. The Aichi targets are the following: 10% for hydraulic areas and 17% for land areas.

Would it be enough to achieve those objectives by 2020, or should we aim even higher to make sure we achieve the minimum?

[Linda Nowlan]

Thank you for your question.

I would say we should definitely reach even higher. Those are minimum standards. We're legally bound to accept them. Canada's a wealthy nation. We can and should do better. We're wealthy in terms of money, in terms of people, but also in terms of our natural heritage.

Another government that is not too unlike the current government here is the U.K.'s. They have just released their biodiversity strategy, and the U.K. is committed to protecting 26% of its marine areas. That's well above the 10%. If the U.K. can do it, I would suggest we can too, with the longest coastline in the world.

Definitely, our target should be a lot higher than the minimum we are legally bound to protect. Canada can and should do better.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much. People tell us that it isn't realistic to achieve even these 10% and 17% targets, but your answer confirms that it is in fact possible to achieve these targets if we invest the time, money and resources. Thank you very much for your answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Monsieur Choquette.

Next we will hear from Mr. Toet.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple of presenters had talked about the need for an approach that recognizes the contribution of the working landscape in the conservation plan.

I guess there are some discrepancies and some questions as to the idea of whether we work on the basis of a carrot or a stick. Some mention was made, I believe in Mr. Martin's presentation, regarding the idea of incentives.

I wonder if you can expand on that a little, how we can have an incentivized program that would recognize work done on the working landscapes to enhance the conservation program across Canada.

[Alan Martin]

I think incentives work at a number of different levels. First, I think there are tax incentives and other financial incentives to protect the functioning of the habitats. Those can be in the form of tax relief or grants or other mechanisms.

There are also incentives in terms of other activities such as education, monitoring, and to a certain degree, enforcement in terms of reporting how the landscapes and the ecosystems are functioning. I think a good plan will have a balance between the different tools—whether they be regulatory incentives, information, or education—that support the outcomes identified in the national conservation plan.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Page, would you agree that this incentive-based process could work very effectively, rather than it being a case of looking at these situations from a very negative aspect from the people on the working landscape, and that we would have systems in place as we go through the process of establishing this national conservation plan that would acknowledge that and put incentives in place for people, rather than having to deal with them on the after-effects?

[Devon Page]

Yes. I'd agree with everything Alan said.

The only other comment I would make is that extensive analysis of this was undertaken when they were designing the Species at Risk Act and understanding the optimum way to manage the land doesn't rely on prohibitions and command and control.

Parliament undertook several studies related to incentives and how to incentivize proper land management. I refer, for example, to the study of Peter Pearse that was tabled in Parliament. In Ecojustice, our expertise is in the law, but when we looked at the application of the law in Canada, one of the things we realized was the shortcoming that few levels within government had invested in understanding the relationship between the law and private landowners or in trying to facilitate the appropriate cooperative relationship. There has to be a component of incentivizing that relationship.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So we have an opportunity in this plan to be looking at enhancing that proposition.

[Devon Page]

Absolutely.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We also heard from a lot of witnesses that we should support and build upon existing successful conservation measures. There are successful, great stories out there. We saw a lot of them yesterday when we did our tour on the island, and we saw the great stories that are out there. I'm just wondering if our witnesses here would be willing to share with us some successful programs they've seen and outline what it is about those programs that they see as being at the core of the program being a success. I don't want you to get into big details—we don't have time for that—but just give a quick overview.

Maybe, Mr. Ellis, you could share with us initially on that, a program that you've seen as successful and why you believe it was very successful.

[Scott Ellis]

I think that first off there has to be an interest in what they do. That's when we talk about a national process and regional implementation, and then when you talk to boots on the ground. You need to find a way to have buy-in, and how exactly to deliver that model.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation, I think, have several. We talked about Project WILD. We talked about the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and the work that they've done. So specifically from the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., we've invested in trying to communicate out in wildlife workshops, and we've used different ways to communicate out, but not necessarily this specific type of approach.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Ms. Nowlan, do you have a story that you'd like to share with us, and could you also tell us how it worked out and how we could use that as a platform as we go forward with this plan?

[Linda Nowlan]

Yes, I think I could probably give you a few, but I'll try to limit myself.

WWF had a very successful endangered spaces campaign, and we worked together with governments from all levels to increase the amount of protected areas in Canada. I think the factors in that successful multi-year campaign were setting very ambitious goals, as I've already mentioned, working in cooperation, and inspiring the public. Those are three fundamentals for programs that I think you can incorporate.

The federal government can do a lot to support private sector conservation as well, as I mentioned. I think of supporting things like the Forest Stewardship Council in forest certification, the Marine Stewardship Council in marine certification, which are really positive examples of using the power of the marketplace. Consumers learn more about the products they buy, make those choices, and companies have an incentive to adopt more sustainable practices. So that would be another group of programs that I'd mention.

We run the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup each year, in cooperation here in B.C. with the Vancouver Aquarium, sponsored by Loblaws. That's another very successful program.

I'll just finish with, in 1967, during the centennial, the government really was trying to inspire people to take action. It was our 100th birthday. Everyone was very happy, and 5.5 million Canadian kids took part in the Canadian Centennial Medal program, where you got a medal for fitness award. So I would suggest something like that, some feel-good, fun, inspiring, youth-oriented, contest medal award would be a great part—a small part but a part—of your national conservation plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much. Time has expired.

Ms. Fry, you have seven minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm beginning to hear even in these last two sessions that any kind of plan we look at as a conservation plan must be comprehensive. We heard earlier on that it's important to have marine and land protected areas. Ecojustice Canada said that's not enough. In fact, you have to be strong and have very strong federal laws with regard to the EPA and SARA. We also heard that having lots of local groups doing protection and rehabilitation is important, and that there needs to be a way to support that as well as to look at private sector conservation.

We've heard that we need to look at a comprehensive and integrated strategy and that one size doesn't fit all in terms of the region. Ecojustice made the point that there needs to be a way of if not penalizing then at least making sure that industry that is harmful to the environment has to pay, so there is some way of ensuring that its harm is mitigated. I heard you sort of hinting at that. How would you see that happening? That is my first question, and it's for Ecojustice.

The second question to you is how we strengthen rather than weaken—which I believe we're currently doing—the national laws, and how we harmonize national and provincial laws. Are they harmonized or are they sort of working at odds with each other?

Those are the questions I wanted to ask Ecojustice.

I want to ask anybody else who wants to answer how they see us looking at supporting private sector conservation.

[Devon Page]

How much time do I have?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

You don't have a lot, so you just have to do what lawyers do well—be quick and succinct.

[Devon Page]

Okay. Well, I'm going to start with the second question first, which is about strengthening national laws and harmonizing them. One of the distinctions I want to make regarding harmonizing laws is that there's a difference between ensuring that bureaucratic delays don't jeopardize the goals of an act and ensuring that the act itself is sound—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

You mean implementing it and enforcing it.

[Devon Page]

Right. So we take the position that the current laws we have, while not optimal, are being characterized as ineffective as laws when in fact bureaucracy and failure to implement effectively are what have jeopardized them. They're being weakened, not because they're ineffective on their own.

It's a cover for laws that actually are quite sound and that for years were quite effectively protecting the environment. I'm speaking specifically of the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As they are written, if they were applied, they could be effective.

We were before the Supreme Court of Canada two years ago, and they commented that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has all the tools you need to ensure the harmonized, comprehensive implementation of environmental assessment in Canada. So one of my comments is that you have to preserve Canada's current laws.

Where I find the environment does best is when governments wrestle for jurisdiction, where they wrestle to take charge of the environment; it's the tragedy of the commons. When they're wrestling to avoid jurisdiction and obligation to take care of the environment and that tragedy of the commons, that's where the environment suffers. That's what we're seeing right now. We're seeing the federal government seeking to divest itself of responsibility as steward of the environment by characterizing the laws as constituting unnecessary red tape. In fact, however, they don't, and that's not what the courts have said, and that's certainly not what the laws say.

So in terms of strengthening the laws, the first thing we have to do is to continue on the trajectory we were on 10 years ago, which is to strengthen the current laws we have in both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act. We're on the trajectory to better incorporate sustainability principles. That's not the same as saying they don't need to be modernized—they do—but those acts were put in place—in 1977 for the Fisheries Act, for example—because people understood that there's a relationship between our well-being and the well-being of fish and fish habitat. That well-being is being jeopardized by the current changes.

So my first point is that you have to preserve our current laws and you have to strengthen them to incorporate current principles of sustainable development in law, which will take me to my second point, which is on the cost of using the environment.

In Canada, unlike most other progressive nations in the world, corporations don't pay for the cost of their activities. The tar sands is a classic example. There is no charge paid by a corporate actor to use four barrels of water for every barrel of oil they produce. How can that be? In other jurisdictions there'd be at least a carrying charge. You can talk about royalties, but the royalty structure in no way creates the fund that would enable reclaiming the lands after the extraction activity is undertaken.

As for the cost of using the environment, we just have to start charging the cost, and that's all there is to it. It's pay now or pay later. Alan made a comment that the principle behind sustainable development and the laws that enable it is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So you take that ounce of prevention now as opposed to having the cost later. Well, we don't apply that principle in any context to Canadian industrial development.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Can I just ask you one thing? Is there a best-practice country we should be looking at? Is Norway, for example, a best-practice country? What are the best-practice countries?

[Devon Page]

There are best-practice countries almost everywhere in the world. There's no one country that stands out as having all the environmental laws we need.

Certainly the Scandinavian countries are way far ahead of Canada. I would say that mostly the Commonwealth countries lag behind, but of those, Canada is the farthest behind. There's a reason for that. There's a perception of abundance, and risks associated with industrial development aren't seen immediately. People believe that they're out of sight, out of mind.

Scandinavia and the European Union have strongly invested in progressive legislation in a way that I could only hope legislators someday see fit to do in Canada. Even in the United States, they're far more progressive than we are in terms of laws that protect the water, the air, and the land.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have 15 seconds.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Does anyone, in 15 seconds, want to tell me how to deal with private sector conservation?