Environment Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I call the meeting to order. I want to welcome everyone to our 48th meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as we study urban conservation.

Before we hear from the witnesses, though, I want to say to the committee that at the last two meetings I've permitted motions to be introduced, and that's caused the meetings to be delayed. I'd ask members to introduce their motions at the end of the meeting. Let me know ahead of time and we will slot enough time at the end of each meeting to deal with motions.

Today we have no legal motions. We have two notices of motions that have not met the two sleeps requirement. If the authors of those motions want to introduce them, we could deal with them at the soonest next Monday. Please give me enough time so that we can allow 15 to 30 minutes, whatever is necessary, at the end of the meeting.

In the future, I won't be recognizing people and giving them the floor to introduce motions. We'll deal with that toward the end of the meeting. Thank you for your patience on this point.

I want to welcome the witnesses. We will hear first from Ms. Andreeff, who is with the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment.

[Monica Andreeff, Executive Director, Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment]

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee today. I am honoured to be here.

My name is Monica Andreeff and I am the executive director of the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, AMPPE.

We're a non-profit association that advocates for a balance between sustainable tourism, ecological integrity, visitor experience, and education in Canada's mountain parks. Our members include ordinary skiers, hikers, and cyclists, as well as tourism businesses, ski areas, and hotel operators.

For 18 years AMPPE has been the voice of balance, speaking for Canadians who want the opportunity to enjoy national parks. We are based in Banff, where Canada's first national park was created more than 125 years ago.

The Canada National Parks Act states that parks are “dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment”. It's clear that national parks were created and protected for future generations of Canadians to use and enjoy. The intention was not to protect parks from Canadians.

However, as the cultural landscape of Canada shifts, national parks are in danger of becoming irrelevant to new Canadians, technology-centred youth, and people who live in urban areas. Visitors no longer want to simply drive through parks, take a snapshot, and continue driving. People need to connect with the wilderness through outdoor adventure activities that give them meaning and form a lasting impression. Otherwise, Parks Canada is at risk of becoming irrelevant to its core funding base, Canadian taxpayers.

Parks Canada is changing and moving in the right direction with learn-to-camp programs for new Canadians and youth-oriented visitor projects. There are volunteer programs in Banff and Jasper national parks to introduce hundreds of Canadians and international visitors to local conservation projects, wildlife monitoring, and assorted research programs every summer.

Parks Canada has also approved guidelines for new recreational activities so that they can be pursued in a way that enhances conservation and culture. Banff Mount Norquay's proposed via ferrata will provide an entry-level mountaineering program that is safe for all ages and abilities. Via ferrata is extremely popular in Quebec and Europe, and it's an exciting outdoor activity that can be combined with education about the conservation of this unique wilderness environment.

The Brewster glacier discovery walk, which is slated to open next year, is located on the highway between Lake Louise and Jasper. It will be a fully accessible interpretive walkway that provides stunning views and teaches people about glaciology, global warming, aboriginal culture, and the early exploration of the Canadian Rockies.

It's an uphill battle to balance recreational use and visitor experience with protecting the wilderness and wildlife, but progress is being made. Unfortunately, Parks Canada faces constant and unjustified criticism from a small vocal minority more concerned about exclusion rather than inclusion.

These critics are interested in limiting people's use and widespread public enjoyment of these national recreation areas. Unfortunately, these tactics erode public support for national parks, which are important to Canadian identity and a symbol of our nation respected around the world.

AMPPE believes there is no place for elitist points of view in national parks. Not everyone can hoist a heavy backpack and go camping in the wilderness for three or four days. New Canadians may not have the skill set and it's almost impossible for families with small children. It's not just one national park for one type of Canadian. We need to provide a wide range of activities for all kinds of people—old, young, disabled, urban, and new Canadians.

Banff and Jasper have great value in being among the most accessible and most visited national parks in the country. They provide excellent visitor services, recreational opportunities, and amenities in two small communities, unlike more remote national parks that might see a few dozen people in a week.

Banff and Jasper national parks have millions of visitors each year, being located close to large urban populations in Edmonton and Calgary, similar to the tremendous prospects for Rouge national park.

The goal of connecting urban Canadians with conservation is to foster an understanding of human impacts and how you can manage urban life differently. It can inspire appreciation of, visits to, and support for larger protected areas, such as national and provincial parks. Young urban dwellers can become energized about nature, so they see it as relevant to modern life and it may help them engage and become passionate about conservation.

To examine urban conservation practices in Canada, one might start with a look at the two unique national park towns of Banff and Jasper, which are located within a UNESCO world heritage site. They are models for environmental management, sustainable development and tourism, and reflect the fundamental practices of national parks. Banff and Jasper recognize, protect from development, and in some cases, enhance environmentally sensitive areas within the fixed town boundaries.

Both towns have superb environmental sustainability plans and introduce environmental education and interpretive opportunities for visitors and residents.

Banff's environmental protection district is land that is capable of supporting a diversity of native wildlife and does not allow for any human development. Protected wildlife corridors stretch 500 metres wide around some neighbourhoods.

The town of Canmore, a community bordering Banff National Park to the east, is not subject to national park regulations, yet it engages in ongoing dialogue with conservation organizations on wildlife corridors and ways to protect these areas during the planning application review.

Canmore has established an urban growth boundary which identifies areas of ecological importance. The municipal land use bylaw identifies three zones of protected space: natural park district, environment district, and wild lands conservation district. The federal government can play an important role in encouraging urban conservation through funding assistance and legislation to maintain and protect those areas that do not directly contribute to the municipal tax base.

Parks Canada is mandated to protect the ecological integrity of Canada's iconic national parks, but this mandate needs to be balanced equally with visitor experience and education.

Not all national parks are created equal, and national parks near large urban populations such as Banff, Jasper, and now Rouge, can play a special role in fostering a culture of conservation. They are heavily visited by populations from cities and therefore the mandate to educate and provide sought-after activities should be paramount. People come to do and not just to see.

People who engage with national parks through high-quality visitor experiences and recreational opportunities will adopt the philosophy of urban conservation over time. Success will be determined by balancing the challenges of use and protection.

In conclusion, changes are needed to the National Parks Act and Parks Canada's mandate to recognize the importance of visitor experience and education, and ensure that it is balanced equally with ecological protection. The Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment encourages the committee to give consideration to this suggestion and the future relevancy of our national park system for Canadians.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Andreeff, thank you so much for the testimony.

We'll now hear from the City of Calgary and we have Ms. Charlton and Mr. Manderson. You have 10 minutes.

[Anne Charlton, Director, Parks, City of Calgary]

Good afternoon. I am Anne Charlton. I am the director of parks for the City of Calgary. With me today is Chris Manderson, who is the portfolio lead of natural areas and biodiversity within our business unit.

We're delighted to be here this afternoon. We hope what we have to say will be a valuable contribution to the work you're doing on urban conservation.

We had to give a lot of thought to what to say in 10 minutes. We are a parks department. We could talk to you about this all day, but what we have done is woven through three constructs in what Chris is about to say, that of triple bottom line, resiliency, and complexity. We'll illustrate these through the challenges and interrelated best practices that we're involved in.

Chris.

[Chris Manderson, Natural Area Management Lead, Parks, City of Calgary]

Thank you.

For a bit of context, we manage about 9,000 hectares of parks within the city itself. Fully 50% of that is considered to be natural environment parks.

Some of the signature parks within our system are places like Nose Hill, which is the largest urban natural area in a municipality in the country. The Inglewood Bird Sanctuary, which was originally founded as a federal bird sanctuary, is the cornerstone of our environmental education program and is still an important migratory sanctuary in the downtown core as well.

In terms of natural area management within the context of a large urban centre, our understanding of what's needed has certainly changed. Quite clearly, what we do as a parks department has changed significantly as well. Conservation in the context of urban development is certainly a challenge and is certainly different from larger park management itself. We deal with issues like permanent impacts and loss that come with development.

We deal with the fact that in a lot of cases the support systems for critical ecological areas are all quite often impaired or significantly changed. Invasive species are a dominant issue for us in terms of management. Ultimately we deal with an inevitable transition with respect to biodiversity. We see a homogenization of ecosystems and species in many respects.

Our parks department is about 100 years old. We've managed natural areas explicitly for the past 30 or so years, so through the experience we've had, we've learned a number of things that are quite important to bring to bear.

One is the issue of design. We as a municipality are constantly challenged with how to design and maintain functional, viable, and sustainable natural environments in a city core. We recognize that natural environments are integral to the city. They are not something you put behind a fence. They are something you have to weave within the fabric of the city itself.

There is the issue of management. They are often seen as low-cost or even no-cost options for a park system, when we would say the opposite is true. They have costs and need to be managed as such.

We are struggling with a number of issues that are beyond our control. Climate change is one of them. Within the context of southern Alberta, we're in a water scarce region. We need to plan for and learn to adapt to the inevitable changes that will come in the future.

We are looking at the issue of ecological goods and services. We see that as an excellent way to address the value of these systems within the city itself. We think we have a good handle on water and wetlands, but we're starting to say we need to think about the park system itself. The urban forest and all of that is part of the city's critical infrastructure.

The city itself has a fairly strong history of advocacy and protection for natural areas. Some of it stretches back nearly a century. Some of the things we have done which we think are examples of best practices are things like our wetland conservation plan, which is one of the first wetland policies for a municipality in Canada. It is perhaps one of our more interesting success stories in that it introduced a mechanism that allows for compensation and mitigation for loss of wetlands. We found that to be a tremendously valuable tool to do a couple of things: to raise the value and the importance of wetlands within the context of decision-making in the city, but also to give us the tools to plan and mitigate and ultimately conserve wetlands in a more sustainable landscape.

We've done some of these things through the lens of things like imagine Calgary. In 2005, the city embarked on a conversation with 18,000 Calgarians. We asked Calgarians what they thought the city should be like in 100 years. The answers we got were fairly interesting. They spoke a lot of connections. They talked a lot about conservation. We heard quite clearly that Calgarians value their natural environment. This is not just within the city itself, but also beyond. Regionally these are important landscapes to us.

That document has shaped some of the policy and some of the direction the City of Calgary is now embarking on. Our municipal development plan, which is our statutory plan that guides us through the next 60 years, has worked in some of those concepts and policies of conservation, biodiversity, green infrastructure, and protection within the context of a growing and denser city.

Last year our city council elected to sign the Durban commitment for biodiversity, which makes us the third Canadian city to sign on to a commitment to make biodiversity a central plank of what we do. Behind Edmonton and Montreal, we now join about 50 cities worldwide that are saying biodiversity and conservation should be an important part of what we do in providing municipal service.

We're doing things like environmental education, with the recognition that we need to promote environmental literacy among Calgarians. We need not only to give them the knowledge to understand what's important and why these things are valuable to us, but also to give them the incentive to act and to have stewardship over what we own.

We look at it from the cultural perspective, as well. We have cultural landscapes that we've been restoring in the City of Calgary, and that, to us, is yet another way to tie us to the landscape. Ultimately, that's what we think we try to do in the parks department.

Some of the other things we're doing, which are perhaps of interest to the committee, are things like invasive species management. This is a big issue for us. Calgary has developed an early detection rapid response model that has taken off regionally. In fact, it now involves all three levels of government. We coordinate a monitoring program within the Bow River Valley, which now involves local municipalities, the Province of Alberta, and Banff National Park. We think it is a good model which shows collaboration and cooperation within the region.

One of the questions you asked in your terms of reference is what the federal rural and urban conservation would be. I'll close with three things that we thought we would bring to your attention.

We need more conversations with local authorities. As a municipality that delivers on the front lines on a number of outcomes related to the environment, we would welcome any opportunity to build bridges and collaborate. We need your expertise, and we can help deliver some of those outcomes. There's recognition that implementation of some of these programs in conservation is inherently local. National and international leadership in conservation would require effective local implementation. Finally, we need a recognition that urban conservation itself is a critical part of the urban infrastructure. We would look for examples and opportunities to include ecosystem management as part of the infrastructure granting programs.

We'd be happy to answer any questions when the time comes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Very good. Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Tree Canada. We have Mr. Michael Rosen and Ms. Dobbie.

[Michael Rosen, President, Tree Canada]

Thank you very much.

Hello everyone. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. My presentation will be in English, but if you have any questions in French, I will be very happy to answer them in French.

Please note that I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Dorothy Dobbie.

I want to start by thanking you, Mr. Chair, and all the honourable members of the committee, for letting us speak to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

My name is Michael Rosen, and for the past five years I've been president of Tree Canada. I'm here with Dorothy, who is the past chair of Tree Canada. Some of you may recognize her as a former member of Parliament from Manitoba.

Tree Canada is a not-for-profit organization that is committed to creating greener healthier communities by encouraging planting and the care of trees where Canadians live, work, and play. We're one of the only organizations that represent urban forests on a national level.

Can you imagine your community without any trees? Trees define your community. They make our lives as Canadians that much more liveable.

Tree Canada has planted more than 78 million trees, greened 530 schoolyards, and helped the urban forest programs of over 490 communities across the country, leaving a legacy that will benefit all Canadians. We manage over 300 tree planting events each year. We've probably held a planting event in every riding that you members represent. On our website, for instance, we have a wonderful picture of the Elmwood—Transcona riding.

I am very happy to say that we were in the Beauharnois—Salaberry riding two weeks ago, with CSX, a rail transportation company.

When we began in 1992, we were very reliant on the Canadian Forest Service and Natural Resources Canada for our funding. We're very proud that 20 years later we're 100% privately funded and we're growing every year.

We have teamed up with some of the best funding partners in Canada: Shell, TD Bank, TELUS, and Home Hardware, to name a few, all of whom share our vision of an urban forest strategy. You may be asking yourself: What is an urban forest, let alone an urban forest strategy?

The urban forest is the forest where we all live, work, and play. It's in our backyard, our front yard, in our ravines, in the mall parking lots, and in our parks. It's by the river, by the office building. It's by the post office; it's on the street corner.

Today, more than 80% of Canadians live in the urban landscape. The trees and plants of this landscape are for many Canadians their deepest connection to nature.

Whose job is it to nurture these living green giants of our cities? In Canada, more often than not, it's the municipality's responsibility. At the provincial and federal levels, few laws or regulations govern the urban forest, except in the case of specific problems, insect outbreaks, or threats.

Many communities have professional foresters. Some work with agencies to manage public spaces, but in many cases the person in charge of maintaining the hockey rink or the golf course is in charge of the community's trees.

The new norm is for municipalities to receive funding for their urban forest projects from not-for-profit organizations like the Tree Canada Foundation, and programs like TD Green Streets that we've developed with TD Friends of the Environment. Why is this? Where is the government's involvement?

Would you believe that Canada is the only G-8 country without a federal urban forest presence or program? For example, the United States, our largest trading partner, and closest fossil fuel polluter, has for some time understood the importance of an urban forest conservation strategy.

In 2011 President Obama announced that he wanted to engage more communities in urban forestry and budgeted $36 million to implement an urban forest strategy.

I am not saying that Canada is doing nothing. The Canadian Forest Service has been a world leader in combatting the emerald ash borer. It's a destructive insect that was first detected in Canada in 2002, and it has killed thousands of ash trees.

Recently we held our 10th Canadian Urban Forest Conference in London, Ontario. We brought together 400 foresters and community people who work all across Canada to share their knowledge and their research.

Corning out of this was a number of initiatives to help our forests. Many municipalities are only now developing an inventory of what they have in their communities. To do this, they have to have some technical background. With the support of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, through the leadership of the chief of the forest service, Thomas Tidwell, some municipalities are actually conducting what they call i-Tree analyses. It's a software suite that allows municipalities to evaluate the trees in their communities.

At our urban forest conference this year, to everyone's surprise, Chief Tidwell launched i-Tree Canada. Yes, our American government counterpart created a software for Canadian municipalities.

All is not negative, though. I am proud that our government has made the courageous and historic decision to make Rouge Park Canada's first national urban forest. It is a great first step, but it really is a small first step.

The Government of Canada must commence a dialogue on a national urban forest strategy or it will continue to fall far behind its international partners and prejudice the environmental health of Canadians.

I would like to turn it over to Ms. Dobbie.

[Dorothy Dobbie, Past Chair, Board of Directors, Tree Canada]

That brings up the question: why is this important and what do trees do? I like to refer to them as trees, rather than the urban forest, because that brings it right home. It's something you know.

Why are trees important to our environment? Well, it's pretty simple. First of all, they clean the air of pollutants. When we're thinking about carbon dioxide in the air, gas emissions, things like that, even dust, trees do a tremendous amount to make that air fresh and clean. They also clean up groundwater. They remove pollutants.

We did a little study in Manitoba on Broadway Avenue, one of our iconic streets. We tested over a period of years what was happening to the salts that were put down to de-ice the streets. We discovered that the trees had actually removed these pollutants from the ground and stored them in their leaves and their wood and so on. In doing that, in some cases they actually changed the composition of some pollutants.

Trees are incredibly important to the environmental health of our communities.

They also conserve energy. If you have a big home-heating bill, you can save as much as 20% by planting the right kinds of trees around your location. They reduce the effects of radiation from the sun and they obviously provide shade, cooling, and wind protection.

They retain water in the soil, 2% to 7% of water that would simply run off into the sewers. As I said before, they transform a number of the contaminants that are in the soil.

They also return clean air to the environment. They drink up carbon dioxide and they breathe out good, fresh oxygen and moisture into the air. This also helps with cooling.

Another interesting thing is studies show that children with ADD function better after being involved in activities in green settings. The greener a child's play area is, the less severe his or her attention deficit disorder symptoms are.

I want to tell you why that is. It isn't just trees. It's the whole environment around us. Apparently, there's something called “happy bacteria” in the soil. It's mycobacterium vaccae. It used to be said that we had to eat a peck of dirt before we die. Well, it's true, because what this bacterium does is it actually triggers serotonin in your gut and it makes you feel happy.

When you're in a green environment where trees and the earth are part of it, you and your kids are going to be healthier. Everybody is going to be a heck of a lot happier and smiley. Also, having enough happy bacteria saves you from things like asthma. Listen to me, because I'm suffering from asthma today, and as I said, it helps kids who have ADHD.

Trees buffer noise. They create a habitat for urban wildlife. They increase property values by 37%, according to our notes, but I think that in some cases it's even more than that.

While we're talking with the federal government, it's interesting for you to know that Tree Canada was started, as Michael said, by an act of Parliament. We actually had a forestry minister at the time, Frank Oberle. He was with us at the urban tree conference in London two weeks ago to help us celebrate what he started and what has become so important over those years.

There is a role for the federal government to play in this, and I think it's one that we'll be looking forward to hearing more about in the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

[Michael Rosen]

I just have one piece for the conclusion. Is that okay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

If it's short.

[Michael Rosen]

It's 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Go ahead.

[Michael Rosen]

Thank you.

Thank you, Dorothy. I appreciated that.

I want to reiterate the importance of urban conservation, especially the benefits of an urban forest strategy. If you want to think of a role for the federal government, I will tell you that municipalities are eagerly awaiting leadership from their federal and provincial counterparts. Many want to catch up to our municipal cousins in the United States. We need to recognize our urban forests as a piece of green infrastructure, if you will. We really do believe that the federal level has an important role in this.

Thank you so much for listening to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you again.

From Trees for Life, we have Mr. Cullen.

You have 10 minutes.

[Mark Cullen, Chair, Trees For Life, Urban Tree Coalition]

Thank you very much.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to come and speak to this distinguished committee. I, too, hope that I have something of value to add to your valuable work, your great work.

I'm pleased that I'm speaking on the heels of those three presentations because they were all excellent. Especially pertinent to my message, I think, is what you've heard from Tree Canada.

The people I represent, Trees for Life, the Urban Tree Canopy Coalition, is made up of members who are all not-for-profit organizations dedicated to the planting, maintenance and celebration of our urban trees. One of our valuable members is Tree Canada, of course, so it's great to see them here at the table today.

What I want to say may shed a different light on the same subject. The subject, of course, is the value of our urban tree canopies, with the emphasis on “urban”. I want to put a finer point on a couple of points that were made, especially with regard to four things.

The first would be health and wellness. I think everyone in this room knows there are ecological benefits to a healthy urban tree canopy. Intuitively we know that. Now we have some facts to deal with. But in terms of health and wellness, we now have quantifiable evidence that cancer, diabetes, lung disease, ADHD in children, are all reduced, and in some cases minimized, when people live in the environment of a healthy urban tree canopy. The quantification comes from a compilation of studies, over 200 of them, including university papers, that were published by Trees Ontario. They can be found on their website if you wish to look for them. We now have evidence of things we thought were true for generations, and now we know they're true.

Another would be the economic benefits of a healthy urban tree canopy. The economic benefits are many. You heard about some from Dorothy. I want to put a finer point on the issue of tourism. I want you to imagine a city that you enjoy travelling to, other than your own city, whatever that might be, if you happen to live in a city or the city of Ottawa. Outside of those obvious examples, is there a city that you like to travel to from time to time? I want you to imagine that city and get a snapshot in your mind of that city and then strip it of its urban tree canopy. Strip the trees out of that postcard image in your mind, and what have you got? We know what you've got. You've got asphalt. You've got steel. You've got cement. You don't have a very beautiful city. You don't have a liveable city.

What we're here today to talk about and to emphasize is that when we have a healthy urban tree canopy, we have a liveable city. We have space that people want to migrate to and want to live in.

We know there are lots of economic benefits beyond tourism. In Ontario, for instance, there is over 100,000 permanent, full-time jobs in the area of horticulture in the private sector alone. You could add another 30,000 in the public sector. Many of them—not all, granted, but many of them—are directly associated with the urban tree canopy.

We also know that real estate values increase by over 30%. For example, Manhattan has the most expensive real estate in the world. There is a condominium project on the south side of Central Park overlooking a beautiful tree canopy. If you stripped the tree canopy out of there and, of course, the green space, I don't think you'd have the same kind of value at all, or desirability.

There are all kinds of economic reasons why the federal government really should be focusing some attention on helping the organizations that are currently committed to enhancing our urban tree canopy. That's the group I represent, the people who are already doing the work. We're not doing new work. We're merely organizing them so that together they can do more.

Another reason I think the federal government needs to focus on the urban tree canopy is the societal benefits of a healthy urban tree canopy. It's a fact that vehicular traffic on a well-treed street, a mature street, slows down. We also know that pedestrian traffic picks up. We know that kids come out of the houses and start playing out of doors—God forbid, maybe a little ball hockey. We know that there are all kinds of other societal benefits to having a healthy urban tree canopy.

Finally, I want to mention the ecological benefits, which Dorothy has already touched upon. We know about the sequestering of carbon. We know about the very efficient production of oxygen, more so by a tree than anything man has created. We know that toxins in rain water are filtered. There are all kinds of other ecological reasons we need to encourage, at every opportunity, the development and enhancement of our urban tree canopy.

In a city like Toronto, there is a 17% tree canopy. In the 1960s it was over 40%. It's been in steady decline ever since. In spite of the best efforts by some good people, it continues to decline. It's not just happening in Toronto; it's occurring in every urban centre across the country.

The emerald ash borer is going to affect 8.5% of the Toronto tree canopy. It's going to affect more than 20% of the Ottawa tree canopy. You should be thinking very hard about what you can do to contribute to the sustaining of our urban tree canopy where the ash is concerned. By the way, Dr. Sandy Smith, the dean of the faculty of forestry at the University of Toronto, has signed a document that says it costs less to save a mature ash than it does to cut it down and replace it. Think about that.

In conclusion, I merely want to say that the purpose of Trees for Life, the Urban Tree Canopy Coalition is to take this discussion that we have about urban infrastructure, which could include public education and police protection and fire protection and storm water sewer management and sanitary sewers, and elevate trees so that they're a part of that discussion, so that, as one councillor in Toronto said to me, “Trees are not a nice to have; they're a must have.” That's where we'd really like to go with this conversation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you very much.

Before we begin our seven-minute rounds of questioning, I'll just remind the witnesses and members of the committee of the scope of the study. The seven points are: One, what is urban conservation? Two, what could be the goals of connecting urban Canadians with conservation? Three, what are the best practices in Canada? Four, what urban conservation initiatives are currently in use and what are the best practices or challenges? Five, what are the economic, health, biodiversity, and social benefits associated with urban conservation? Six, how would you define a protected space? Seven, what is the role of the federal government?

With that in mind, that's the scope, Mr. Woodworth, you have the first seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

Let me say at the outset that you probably don't have to convince me of the benefits of trees, and I'll accept just about everything that's been said in that respect. Having said that, my challenge is to ensure that my personal enjoyment of trees can somehow be legitimately transferred into appropriate federal government action, so that's the direction I'm coming from.

I'd like to begin by asking Mr. Manderson about something. A particular concern that I have in this study is that in Canada, which is a young and growing nation, we have been expanding urban areas. Probably there is no better example of that than Calgary. I wonder if you could assist me in telling me how Calgary manages the preservation and protection and access to natural areas as the city grows and expands, as its footprint, I assume, gets larger.

For example, have you done an inventory of the lands surrounding Calgary with a view to determining what must be protected and what you would like to protect? Maybe you could describe for me the approach that Calgary takes.

[Chris Manderson]

Certainly. The quick answer is yes, we have done extensive inventory work. Calgary is a large city of 1.1 million people within a larger, more rural context of several municipalities.

Regional planning is something that's being looked at, at the provincial level. The City of Calgary has been an active participant in setting local thresholds and targets for conservation and protection. We work within that realm but also within the context of where most of the urban development is in Calgary itself.

We make use of the legislation available to us. Primarily it's our provincial planning legislation. We use that to identify and set aside any significant areas.

To be blunt, it involves a lot of creativity because the acts that we work with really talk about undevelopable land. We have some powers to look at things like water conservation or conservation of wetlands and aquatic areas. We make use of that to the best of our ability, to at least identify them, get them mapped, and make sure that's an element of the discussions that we have with the development industry when we start to build.

My view is that they are not necessarily polar opposites. I think you can do good, wise development and still protect natural areas; in fact I think you have to.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You've touched on something else I wanted to ask. When you mentioned discussions with the development industry, you also mentioned regional planning. What organizations or players, or levels of government, do you think need to be involved in that expansion or preservation planning? There would be the local development industry and regional municipal authorities, but is there anybody else that should be involved in that?

[Chris Manderson]

Certainly within the context of what we do in Calgary, we see a role for the provincial government. We work a lot with them in land use planning and those sorts of things.

I would suggest that when you look at some of the broader targets that Canada may have, I'm thinking of our being a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, for example. I think there's a leadership role you could play in terms of helping local authorities, and also in the work you do with provincial governments on setting targets for conservation. I think there's a role there.

The big one for us, really, is working with the province and dealing with issues like water management and habitat conservation.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to switch gears and ask Ms. Charlton about existing parks and green spaces.

We had an excellent conversation a day or two ago about the need for accessibility to those parks. Could you give us, if you're able to, some information about the number of visitors Calgary parks or green spaces have, what the trends, if any, have been, and what you do to make sure that those are accessible to Calgary and area residents?

[Anne Charlton]

Yes, partially.

We do a significant amount of research. It tends to be more qualitative in talking to Calgarians. We've been doing some research on customer segmentation. We work with Tourism Calgary.

Some of our larger sites....many of you may have been to the Calgary Stampede. There are almost 100,000 people on the grounds each day. We think that probably 50% of those people spill into a park almost on a daily basis because the physical location of the Calgary Stampede is tied into the river valley system. We supply, really, the breathing space for many tourists along the riverfront area. A number of festivals are held in Calgary. Again those are large events where we work carefully with the carrying capacity of the outside spaces.

Calgarians tell us that they are in their parks on a weekly basis, a monthly basis. Through the citizen satisfaction baseline survey that has been done in Calgary for as long as I can remember, which is at least 15 years, it turns out that parks are the second most important piece of municipal infrastructure after the fire department.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You've not said anything at all about any concerns by citizens regarding accessibility. May I assume that everybody finds their way to the parks without difficulty?

[Anne Charlton]

We have a standard in our development process that puts a 450-metre corridor around where you live to the nearest park. With the exception of maybe two or three communities that are older and were built in a different planning structure, we have been able to attain that. We also look at regional parks with a 20-minute driving distance. We also deal with barrier-free. I would say there hasn't been a park designed or retrofitted in the last 25 years that has not been striving to have a barrier-free design.

Even within a natural area such as Nose Hill, if you come off of two of the main parking lots, you have carefully constructed less than 8% technically appropriate pathways that will handle strollers, walkers, wheelchairs, etc.

One of the things we are looking at is working with the provincial parks. They are dealing with some wheelchairs with different stroller mechanisms for more technically challenging terrain. We'll work with them on that.