Evidence of meeting #36 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was habitat.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Pamela Zevit  Registered Professional Biologist, Past President, Chair, Practice Advisory and Professional Ethics, Association of Professional Biology
Chloe O'Loughlin  Director, Terrestrial Conservation, British Columbia Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Brian Riddell  President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Jeff Surtees  Chief Executive Officer, Trout Unlimited Canada
Alan Martin  Director, Strategic Initiatives, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Devon Page  Executive Director, Ecojustice Canada
Scott Ellis  Executive Director, Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia
Linda Nowlan  Director, Pacific Conservation, World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
Neil Fletcher  Education Coordinator, Wetlands, B.C. Wildlife Federation
David Bradbeer  Program Coordinator, Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust
Jessica Clogg  Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Damien Joly  Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you.

Mr. Toet, you have five minutes.

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I also have children, and hopefully one day grandchildren too. My question has to do with the educational aspect. Connectivity has been touched on a little bit in your testimony. The connectivity between young Canadians, urban Canadians, and the need for conservation is something that has been just barely touched on, I think, during this session of testimony, and I think it's a very critical and important element of us going forward.

In fact, Mr. Joly, I was a little intrigued by your statement, and maybe you can speak a little further to this, where you kind of said that with regard to the national parks, there's no need for enhanced visitor experience. I think I know a little bit where you're going with that, but I'd like you to articulate a little bit further whether you really meant by it that...because I think education and experience make up a huge part of us going forward on conservation methodologies throughout the country.

I just want to give you an opportunity to maybe clarify that statement a bit.

2:10 p.m.

Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada

Damien Joly

Sure, and I appreciate that, thank you.

We're all conservationists because at some point in our childhood, we connected with nature. We had an experience that meant something to us, where we started to say that the environment or wildlife or fish or plants meant something to us.

If that doesn't happen, we don't get conservationists. If we don't get conservationists, we don't get conservation.

Reaching out and meeting and introducing conservation ideals to children, to people who have never had the experience before, to people my age and older, I think is critically important. And I think parks can play an incredible role in allowing and connecting people to that nature, to building conservationists.

What I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't let visitor use and the economics of this use of sites necessarily drive the purpose of a park. We shouldn't let that override the intrinsic importance of conservation within those parks. There is a balancing act. Let's face it, unless we get gate sales or the public putting value on these parks, there isn't going to be funding for those parks. We're going to lose more than the 638 parks staff we just did in this last budget, unless people value parks.

I think it's important to get people to those parks, but not at the expense of conservation of species and landscapes and biodiversity within those parks.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Great. Thank you for that.

It is a very important aspect. I grew up in an urban setting, and yet I was very involved in conservation aspects because of what my parents did. They spent time with me and brought me to these areas and showed me in a very physical way what it was all about and why it was so important. It is a critical element, and I'm glad you had an opportunity to clarify that.

Regarding that, going further, maybe you could speak to this, Ms. Clogg. How can we integrate the education of urban youth especially? That's what I'm focusing on because we have a bit of a dilemma there. We have a situation in the age of the computer and the Internet. It's a beautiful tool in a lot of ways, but it also has held some of our young people captive, so to speak, within their homes, and they haven't gone outside.

How can we change that dynamic in a very tangible way and get young people really involved and desiring to be part of conservation?

2:15 p.m.

Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Jessica Clogg

I think it's an amazing question. Regrettably, it's not one that being an environmental lawyer clearly positions me to answer.

One observation I would have from working in the Lower Mainland, but also in communities around the province, is how surprising it has been for me to watch young people, who are much more connected to the environment around them than one would ever think, and have very articulate views of potential threats to the beaches they appreciate, to the air they breathe. Perhaps I'm turning it around and saying that I think there are many youth leaders who....

I had the privilege last week to travel with an 11-year-old from the Powell River area, who spoke more eloquently than I ever could about her concerns about oil tankers and pipelines, and so I think that part of the answer is to connect with youth leaders, with young people who have made those connections, and allow them to guide us.

Again, aside from my own desire to get my kids out and about and adding to nature, it's not an area that I have particular expertise in.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Time has expired.

Next we will hear from Mr. Choquette. You have five minutes.

2:15 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask question 4 directly: what should the conservation priorities be?

We have had a number of discussions with other witnesses to determine whether we should focus only on one species or if we should have a more ecosystem-based or more overall approach. Would you agree that an overall approach would be more effective?

Yesterday, in Nanaimo, we had the opportunity to meet with a lot of people who work on the ground to save salmon. These people are doing an excellent job. But the approach is species-specific. When I asked them questions about other species in the ecosystem, they unfortunately had no answer. This wasn't bad faith, but they didn't have the financial means to do everything.

Should we really ensure that the approach is more global and have the financial means to do so?

2:15 p.m.

Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada

Damien Joly

That's an excellent question. If I could air the dirty laundry of the Wildlife Conservation Society a bit, this is something we struggle with all the time. Do we take the global approach, or do we pick a handful of species and focus on those species? This is something we struggle with.

I think this is why we've put a lot of thought into the three-pillar strategy we put forward today. One is looking at that matrix of landscapes outside of protected areas and developing land-use planning processes that allow us to protect habitat on a broader scale in addressing cumulative impacts from the things we do to landscapes. As well, it's marrying that with a protected area strategy that is complete and is representative of Canada's ecosystems. Then the third pillar is to focus on particular species of concern.

I think conservation is a crisis discipline. You're always trying to save the last of the last. Until we see more significant investment in conservation, that's always going to have to be how it's going to be. We really look at the most critically endangered species in the context of already having developed land-use planning outside and inside parks.

2:20 p.m.

Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Jessica Clogg

If we think of the core elements of protecting, connecting, and restoring landscapes, it's unquestionable that those sorts of coarse filters and fine filters of the ecosystem and species-based approaches have to go hand in glove. My understanding of the conservation biology literature is that in order to maintain the habitat that is going to maintain the broad swath of species, some of which we may not have even identified yet, we're going to have to take those ecosystem-based approaches.

At the same time, there are important reasons for picking focal species for planning purposes, both species that have large area-based needs that help us understand how much we need to set aside, as well as species that have special needs that are threatened or endangered.

The key piece here is a question of what might be called conservation design. What are the processes and mechanisms we need to put in place for land-use planning, spatially based cumulative effects assessment, that allow us to ask those questions and apply both lenses to the question?

2:20 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

I would like to go back to these two aspects you mentioned.

I'm now asking question 5: what should the NCP implementation priorities be? Of course, we're talking about amending the Fisheries Act that aims to protect fish habitat. You said that it was important to protect the fish habitat because it is what makes it possible to have an effect on all the others.

With respect to environmental assessments, I recall that during the hearings, several individuals emphasized the cumulative effects. Unfortunately, this aspect is ignored in Bill C-38. But these two pieces of legislation are very important for putting in place a national conservation plan. The Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will have to be reviewed.

My question is for you, Mr. Joly and Ms. Clogg. Briefly, what recommendations do you have?

2:20 p.m.

Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada

Damien Joly

You want specific recommendations about Bill C-38, or recommendations for the plan in light of the changes.

Things like the changes to the Fisheries Act are going to make it very difficult for us to take a broad-based approach to conservation of species. We're going to find we're in a long-term debate about this stream being important for this reason and not that stream, so this stream doesn't matter anymore and we can do what we want.

I think it's being able to roll that back to say the ecosystem is important, because an intact ecosystem is what gives us the clean water we're all drinking right now. That comes from intact ecosystems. When we start making changes and making commercial or even cultural value-based decisions about certain streams—I just used that as an example—I think we're going to find that in the long term, we will lose the whole, bit by bit, by taking it apart.

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Unfortunately I think you've crossed the line in not staying on scope. If we could answer the questions, regardless of how they're asked, that stay within the scope.... Time has expired also.

Mr. Lunney, you have the last five minutes.

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bradbeer, in your presentation you mentioned land use in the delta going back to 1868, and bringing the fields back to be somewhat similar to what they might have been. I believe your comment was that they “quickly become tall grass habitat that emulates historical grassland ecosystems” present on the LFRD prior to 1868. You mentioned 1868 earlier as part of your presentation.

Curiously enough, 1868 was the year that the current Fisheries Act passed in Parliament. It's an immense problem. The definitions in the Fisheries Act are totally out of touch with modern realities, unfortunately.

There is this delicate status quo in all the user groups of fisheries: first nations' cultural, ceremonial, and other uses; as well as commercial and recreational fisheries. A very delicate balance has been worked out, the status quo, and there is paralysis about dealing with updating this law, which desperately needs to be done.

There's so much room for fearmongering. With the modest changes that are actually included in the current legislation, there's lots of room for fearmongering. I'd like to assure the witnesses that it is not the intention of this or any other government to destroy the environment.

A previous witness mentioned the economic opportunities we have in this country. She feels that we need a robust conservation plan to balance any development objectives the government may have. That's exactly what we're attempting to do. It is a balancing act. In case anyone around the table has lost track, if we lose our economy, we also lose our opportunity to make the environmental investments people are asking us to make and achieve those important goals.

I found it interesting that you mentioned 1868 in your presentation. There have been a lot of changes since 1868, and the legislation does need to keep up with them.

Bearing that in mind, I think it was Mr. Joly who mentioned an expansion of the Nahanni. That's something this government did. There was a lot of work that went before in analyzing it. There was a huge expansion of the Nahanni National Park, the Great Bear national park, the Ramparts River—I think that's 33,000 hectares—the eastern side of Great Slave Lake—10 million hectares. If you consider the land that was set aside for land claims up there, it's another 62,000 hectares. This is the largest conservation achievement in Canadian history.

This government is very interested in actually achieving some conservation objectives. That's the purpose of this study, actually. We're moving towards that and we appreciate your being here to help us recognize how we can get there.

Having said that, my colleague mentioned engaging and involving young people. Some of our witness groups have creative plans on how to get more people turning over rocks, catching critters in the pond, looking at pond life under a microscope to see what a hydra and aquatic organisms look like.

How can we engage more young people in interacting with the environment? There's a large segment of our population that is still not being reached. I think you answered a question from Mr. Toet about parks.

I'll just throw that open again. Do any of the witnesses have any suggestions on how we can further engage young people and new Canadians, for example, in the environment?

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

You have one minute.

2:25 p.m.

Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada

Damien Joly

Engaging new Canadians, old Canadians, and re-engaging children of cultures that have lost that connection to the environment is about exposure. It's about taking kids out to see the beautiful country they live in, and the wildlife and plants that are part of it.

I drag my own children away from their PlayStation and their Wii, sometimes under duress. We take them outside to Mount Benson. We take them to Departure Bay. We take them out to the areas you're very familiar with. They actually like it once they're there and the fights stop. They stop bickering.

It's about convincing people to get outside and enjoy the environment, the country that your government and other governments have continued to protect for the last 150 years.

Our culture is based on our natural resources. We can't lose sight of that.

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Time has expired, but if you have a very short comment, proceed.

2:25 p.m.

Program Coordinator, Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust

David Bradbeer

Have a national youth expeditionary force, but the expeditions are within Canada. Keep it cheap. Get kids out. A lot of kids in the city don't get the chance to get out, so you have to do something about it.

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Very good.

We have concluded hearing from the witnesses. I want to thank you for being with us.

As we've found, through the questions and the answers, there's a connectivity with all issues regarding the environment. We appreciate the passion you bring to this table. We, too, around here have this. My responsibility is to keep us within that very narrow scope. It is difficult.

If you would like to provide additional input to the committee on a broader venue, then please forward a letter to me, as the chair, or the clerk, and we'll distribute your comments to the members of the committee. The comments are welcome, but unfortunately the scope is narrow.

Thank you again for being here.

I want to also thank the people who have travelled with the committee and made this trip possible. Setting up a room like this to look like a committee room, it was our staff who are going along with us: the clerk, the analysts. The interpreters have been translating for four-and-a-half hours today, so I want to thank them. Thank you everybody for being part of this team.

We head to the airport and head to Calgary, where we will hear from some additional witnesses.

Again, thank you so much for being with us.

We're adjourned.