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.
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
And I would ask the chair to respect that the member here actually is within the scope.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
You suggested I was outside of the scope, Mr. Chair, and I wasn't. I'm just repeating that I'm not outside the scope. So when you make a comment that makes it sound as though I was outside of the scope, I'm just saying that I'm not. That's all. I'm just responding.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Let's all cooperate.
Ms. Clogg, could you comment and keep it in mind to be within the scope?
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Chair, my first question was to the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust about incentives for—
2 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust
In answer to your question, incentives can be varied, and I think you have to look at specific examples.
Briefly, to try to provide some framework for going forward, the incentive has to somehow at least match the cost incurred. In our case we have seed, equipment, time, labour, and fuel costs associated with establishing these fields. So the incentive has to at least somewhat balance that.
Where we can't cover all the costs of the farmer who's incurring this cost on his land, then maybe there has to be some other accrued benefit. In this case, it's the benefits to soil fertility that drive the farmer forward.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
What can governments do as incentives? Could it be a tax credit? What is an example?
2 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust
Precisely. It could be a tax credit, or perhaps a cost-share payment. With a specific look at the fisheries habitat on private farmland where riparian corridors are moving through, many farmers are hesitant to enact all the management necessary to maintain those corridors because it's a cost to them. They lose land out of production.
Perhaps yes, it could be a tax credit model, or direct cost-share through local non-profits. That seemed to work for us, where government regulation makes that harder to do. Engaging regional organizations, I think, is the way of specifically targeting said management.
2 p.m.
Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
In response, I will say first that I sincerely believe that protection of species at risk, protection of the environment and human beings from toxins, protection of migratory birds, all of which are cornerstones of our federal environmental laws, should be cornerstones of a national conservation plan. With respect to strengthening those pieces of legislation as a component of the plan, let me speak first to environmental protection.
Whether it is done through that piece of legislation or otherwise, establishing legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions that do not allow exemptions for the oil sands is fundamental. I spoke briefly in my remarks about the tremendous impact that climate change is having on our land and water. At the same time that we are including in our national conservation plan mechanisms for using nature-based strategies to adapt to climate change, we cannot ignore the imperative of getting our greenhouse gas emissions under control. It's fundamental to any conservation plan.
With respect to species at risk, when we look at the range of human activities and resource development that impact on critical habitat of species, obviously many of them are things which result from provincial approvals or tenures granted under provincial jurisdiction. For example, in British Columbia today, we do not have species at risk legislation. Clearly there is a gap that needs to be addressed.
In terms of strengthening the coordination both between the province and the federal government and with aboriginal governments, and in terms of the way we make decisions, I want to come back again to recommend the concept of proactive, regional, cumulative effects assessment. This would be something that would not be triggered simply by any one project, but something that would be done proactively and spatially, and would be focused on the needs of valued ecosystem components. When we start doing that, and we start taking on that sort of planning-based approach to assessment, that is a way in which all of those crosscutting laws can be strengthened and implemented in a more efficient and effective manner.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada
I'll come back to the comment about science, and from my perspective, an investment in science and stressing the importance of science-based conservation decisions. I will use an example from epidemiology, my discipline. John Snow didn't know why he was breaking the handle off the water pump when he stopped the London cholera outbreak in 1854, but he had enough knowledge and information to understand that if he broke the handle, he would stop the cholera outbreak.
I'm not saying we should use science to paralyze us, but we need to use the best science we have to be able to make the best decisions that will lead to long-term sustainability of our ecosystems and the protection of wildlife.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
We will now begin the five-minute sessions of questioning. We will begin with Mr. Choquette for five minutes.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witnesses. I have a lot of questions to ask but very little time. Five minutes isn't much time for all our questions.
I would like to talk a bit about climate change. You all spoke about climate change and the importance of fighting these changes, in the NCP. You aren't the first ones to tell us this. Yesterday, during the visit, everyone was talking to us about climate change and its impact, saying that an NCP cannot ignore it.
Unfortunately, with the budget, we no longer have the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. However, there should be something else to ensure that climate change is taken into account. We are also losing the national roundtable on the environment and the economy, which had done a very good study to explain why climate change will cost more if we tackle it later rather than right away.
Mr. Joly and Ms. Clogg, I would like you to make some brief and very specific recommendations to the committee on climate change. Could you also tell us why it is absolutely essential that the NCP discusses it?
2:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada
Thank you for that question.
I think addressing climate change has to come on two fronts. One is mitigation, trying to slow down the process of climate change through a control of carbon. I think there should be strong language, because we really don't know what that road will look like down the way. We really need to do everything we can to put the brakes on that. I think an element in the national conservation plan that addresses mitigation is really important.
The second component is adaptation, to design our conservation strategies—and we've all talked about this—in a way that will allow animals, plants, and the organisms that we care about to adapt to a changing environment. We need to have that latitudinal and altitudinal connectivity and porosity that allows them to adapt so that we don't see extinctions over time of the species we care about because of climate change.
So really, my focus would be around adaptation and mitigation.
2:05 p.m.
Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
I agree completely.
I would only add one additional layer with respect to nature-based adaptation strategies—namely, while some level of climate change is now considered inevitable, we do have the ability to regulate other stressors on the land base. Whatever type of federal or provincial approval we're talking about, whatever type of proactive land-use planning or cumulative effects assessment we're talking about, we have the ability to reduce other stresses from human activities, from resource development. We need to be taking that precautionary approach when we look at the elements of a national conservation plan.
We need to be protecting more and protecting it smarter.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
The other point I wanted to mention has to do with science.
We unfortunately lost the national roundtable on the environment and the economy, but what should the recommendation be for science? In my opinion, there cannot be a national conservation plan worthy of its name without taking into account these matters, and I would like to know what you would recommend in that respect. If we do not focus on science and conduct studies and assess the current state of the situation first so that we can improve it, this won't work. What do you recommend with respect to investing in science? What do you think the sources of funding could be? The federal government wants to grant funding to this, but the problem is always the same. Who should provide funding in this regard? Could industry contribute more?
What do you think? Mr. Joly, Ms. Clogg and, perhaps, Mr. Bradbeer, I'll give you the rest of my time to tell us what your recommendations would be. The clock is ticking fast.
2:10 p.m.
Executive Director and Senior Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
I actually wonder if one of my colleagues, particularly my colleague here who works directly with science and scientific research, might be better positioned to answer that.
2:10 p.m.
Associate Director, Nanaimo, Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada
Sure.
To be fair, there is a great role for industry and for the non-governmental side of things to fund science. I mean, that fundamentally is what WCS Canada is—a scientific organization. We fund through private funds, through grants, through other different mechanisms, not strictly through public funding. But the advantage of investment of public funds in science is critical. Public funds can be used to look at long-term questions that go across borders, that aren't limited to specific industrial or economic needs.
I always think that, you know, the government governs for our grandchildren, and we do science for our grandchildren and for our great-grandchildren. I don't have any yet, but I will some day. The idea is that public funding and public investment in science—through restoration funds to NSERC to restoration of the scientific community within the federal government—is critical. That, with funding back to universities, is critical for us to be able to look at the long term.