Environment Committee on May 15th, 2012

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

You also spoke about agreements with aboriginal peoples. Agreements with aboriginal peoples often compensate them for damage caused by this or that company. What would you like to see in the agreements between governments and aboriginal peoples?

[Jessica Clogg]

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear the interpretation clearly.

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

Usually when there are negotiations between les Autochtones and the government, they just give money, and that's it. Can you elaborate on what would be a good negotiation?

[Jessica Clogg]

That wasn't the case for this example in British Columbia.

Let me speak about one example in particular.

One of the most recent and most powerful reconciliation agreements was with the Council of the Haida Nation. That agreement exemplifies many of the principles I was talking about as being important in a national conservation plan.

First of all, both the Haida and the province took an ecosystem-based approach in developing their land-use plan. They ultimately protected over 50% of the archipelago. But beyond that legal protection, which was agreed to in a government-to-government way between the two parties, they also put in place a network of other reserves and conservation areas, wildlife habit areas, etc., that was negotiated between the parties and eventually legally implemented. So there was a strong network of protection outside of protected areas.

I commend to you the example, and I think it went far beyond a financial arrangement. It looked at the climate change implications. It had a high level of conservation and a number of innovative economic measures, as well. So I commend to you that example to go deeper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Mr. Lunney, you have seven minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, and thanks again to our witnesses for joining us today and contributing to this important discussion.

One of our previous witnesses was talking about.... This applies, I think, to Mr. Bradbeer's remarks. We talked a lot about connectivity, connecting ecosystems. And I heard him talk about matrices between preserved and conserved areas. I think your work with farmlands in the Delta region is particularly interesting in addressing some of those concerns. You talked about the many migratory birds and so on, that come through the Delta area and about what a rich area that is.

As you've been engaging farm communities with habitat improvement, as we're seeing some of that.... How many years have you been working on this? Are we seeing dividends already in terms of increased wildlife use in those areas where you have seen some positive changes?

[David Bradbeer]

Yes. We've been working since 1993. It is getting close to 20 years that we have been conducting this work.

Part of our work has been assessing how well some of these programs have worked in acting as habitat. Indeed the area, because of the high-quality adjacent tidal marsh habitat, has a lot of wildlife using it. But with the advent of these programs, we've actually seen the use of the fields increase. We've measured that using various methods.

We've looked at waterfowl use of farm fields. Generally, farm fields are good habitat for waterfowl. But we've seen them move into the cover crop fields that we've established, use them during their fall migration periods as well as during the wintering periods, and then again in spring migration.

We have some somewhat cursory evidence that some shorebirds also benefit from certain types of cover crop fields. Some of our work has really showed the value of these grassland set-aside fields to wintering raptors. So we've measured the abundance of small mammal prey on the landscape and compared that with other non-set-aside fields, fields that aren't being managed for wildlife. Indeed, the number of small mammal prey is higher in those managed fields, and the corresponding number of raptors, which we're targeting for this conservation, is higher as well.

I'll just point out that we directly target four of the species listed under the Species at Risk Act for conservation through that set-aside program.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Great.

One of the points that I wanted to bring out earlier with user groups, who are actually out there engaging with wildlife, is that observation is the foundation of science. We do a lot of talk about science, but sometimes I think we forget that the ground level, the foundational level, is actually observations on the ground.

With your work, and your observations there, is it mainly your own organizations doing observations? Are the farmers engaging in wildlife assessment counts, and so on?

One of our other objectives is engaging community. You've been at this 20 years. I'm just wondering who you're using to make the observations at this stage. Are the farmers participating and/or is the broader community getting involved in observing or taking advantage of some of the wildlife increases, to make known the advantages of this type of program?

[David Bradbeer]

Yes, we're trying to get more into that. We rely on a lot of citizen science. There are some coastal water bird counts that Bird Studies Canada has been coordinating. There are Christmas bird counts. We don't formally run them, but we definitely take advantage of the data that's available.

The farmers usually are the eyes and ears on the ground. They go out and look at wildlife and also tell us things that are going on in the landscape. More formally, which is what I think you're trying to get at, how are we engaging the broader community in this kind of observational work? To be quite honest, it's a bit of a challenge sometimes for our small organization to get data that's collected in the same manner across the board. If it's not collected in the same manner, it's not as usable, and it's harder to make comparisons.

To that end, we're engaging the Young Naturalists' Club, some of the Vancouver and lower mainlands groups, and we have a proposal in for a youth science project. They'll actually be the eyes and ears watching and conducting wildlife assessments using standardized monitoring procedures. That will fulfill two of our roles: wildlife population assessments, and engaging the community at large.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

In part of your presentation, you said that the primary method of implementing conservation on local farms is through the six stewardship programs administered by your organization. I imagine that these programs are adapted according to the type of farm, the actual location, and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about how that actually works?

[David Bradbeer]

Do you mean how the programs are targeted?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

You mentioned two.

[David Bradbeer]

I mentioned two. I mentioned the winter cover crop program and the grassland set-aside program, our two largest programs. We also have a hedgerow program for native trees and shrubs along the margins of fields. We have a grass margins programs, which is kind of a mix of set-asides and hedgerows. It's just a strip of grass along the field. Our two totally agronomically focused programs are the field liming and laser levelling programs.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

That's super. We saw some examples of the importance of those native grasses in inner tidal zones and so on. The right grass in those areas greatly expands fish habitat, how much it's used, and how much insect activity then feeds the fish and so on. I recognize how important that is. In fact, I took a little stroll along here between sessions and saw some examples of that, just up the river, where a couple of herons were in the water right opposite where the grass was at the edge of the water. That speaks to the issues we're talking about today.

Ms. Clogg, you mentioned wildlife corridors and making sure that we connect areas. Roads can be a barrier. We see on the highways, often, wildlife fences to keep them from getting on the highways. None of us wants to collide with wildlife. We all see deer standing there as we drive by on the highway and wonder whether we should stop and risk getting killed or hope that the deer doesn't try to cross before somebody runs it over.

You raised another interesting point. Do we have examples of best practices somewhere we can incorporate in highway design to make sure that corridors pass under or pass over, or that there is some kind of corridor? How well are these things used? Maybe that's not your area. Maybe others can comment on it.

Also, you raised the interesting point that as climate zones move north, some of the southern species are going to take advantage of that and move northward as well. How can we take advantage of that? Could you, or maybe one of the others, comment on how we can take advantage of those concepts?

[Jessica Clogg]

First, with respect to corridor design and major transportation corridors, obviously, there are biological specialists in all of these areas.

Let's take a species, such as the grizzly bear. Once you start getting over 0.6 kilometres per kilometres squared of road density, you are going to have some very significant impacts on that species. While, of course, in an extreme circumstance, you're going to want to be assisting that species in crossing the highway, so to speak—and there are best practices with respect to that—really, I think the broader message is that we need large, interconnected, protected areas and management of the matrix in a way that maintains its porosity so as to maintain these species.

There are many specialists. There's lots of good literature about roads.

With respect to the movement of species, again, the implication that needs to be drawn is that we need to expand our protected areas. We need to enlarge them, and this is both in terms of our existing protected areas and in terms of completing the protected area system. We need to expand them northward and upward to maintain the ecosystem representation we have and to allow those species to move in response to changing climatic conditions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Now we have Ms. Fry for seven minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentations. They were very clear.

Today we heard about all of the things that one needs to do. Setting up protected parks is not the only thing. You need to have strong national laws, etc. You all pointed that out and you said you need to look at working with incentives for farmers.

I wanted to ask about what those incentives could be for people who own private land. Can you give me some idea of why we're not putting forward enough incentives? What are the ways in which we can create those incentives?

That's my first question and it is for the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust.

I also want to say we were talking about the need to strengthen rather than diminish the laws we have now. So what do you think we could do to strengthen our EPA and what can we do to strengthen SARA? That question is for Ms. Clogg.

Then, Mr. Joly, you made a very important point. You said that we should never do anything we can't undo. In medicine, which is my profession, we always say, “first, do no harm”. There always needs to be evidence that what you're doing, while it sounds good, down the road is not going to create harm that you can't reverse.

I wanted to ask the three of you to comment on those things. Perhaps you can comment on what incentives you think could be used for private lands, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Before you comment, you could get a number of diverse questions from members around this table, but you still have to answer and deal with them within the scope of this study.

Relating to Ms. Fry's request for comments on how can SARA can be made better, as long as your answer ties in to the building of a national conservation plan, that would be appropriate. But to make comments specific to SARA legislation would not be in the scope of today. Keep that in mind when you are commenting.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I hope that isn't eating into my seven minutes, but I just wanted to say we heard repeatedly today that in regard to a conservation plan, one of the key pieces of a good conservation plan has to be strong national legislation, and these are the two pieces of legislation that actually do deal with conservation. So I think it's in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Bradbeer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

No, just hold on one second.

Ms. Fry, I've given direction to the witnesses, and I hope you'll respect the comments of the chair. Any comments have to be tied to the scope of the study today. That's the ruling of the chair, Ms. Fry.

I don't want to eat into your time. If you're raising a point of order, then we'll stop the clock. Is that what you're doing?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Okay. What's your point of order?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

My point of order is simply that I did not ask any question here that is outside of the scope of this. I think I know what the scope is. I think every single witness has mentioned these two pieces of legislation, so I'm just asking about it. It is within the scope.

I heard how strong national legislation in terms of conservation and species at risk has to do with environmental sustainability. So I'm just asking what they think would strengthen it. It's a part of the plan. My point is I didn't think one needed to suggest that it was beyond the scope, because it was totally within the scope. That's my point of order.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

It's not a point of order, but—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Well, you did break in and ask me for one.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I would really like to get on with the answers if you don't mind. I think it's within the scope. We've all agreed that it's within the scope. Perhaps we could get the answers.