Evidence of meeting #49 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 areas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Okay, great.
Mr. Kent, you talked about biological diversity. My constituency has within it Riding Mountain National Park.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I think that's the first park I ever visited as a child.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
I live right next to it, and I'm quite familiar with the conflicts and issues between the local agricultural community and the park itself. I must say it's getting much better, and not just because I'm the MP, but we'll leave it at that.
In your view, is the setting aside of wilderness areas the only tool to conserve biodiversity, or can we actively manage for biodiversity? I use the term “actively” in its most vigorous sense.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I think our view is that we need to do both: we do need to set aside wilderness areas, but we also need to be concerned with the environmental practices in the areas where we are developing and harvesting resources.
We've been particularly involved with those kinds of issues in the context of the forest industry through such things as the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, for instance, which has brought together environmental organizations and most of the major forest companies to look at, among other things, better forest management practices within, in a sense, the working forests. We've been less involved in those considerations in the context of agriculture, but they're clearly important as well.
I don't think either exists in isolation from the others. You've touched on the fact that the interface between a national park and its surroundings in terms of wildlife is a complex and sometimes difficult one. They both affect each other, and we shouldn't be thinking of either in isolation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Of course, the definition of biodiversity still hasn't been settled because we get into questions of the number of species and of native species versus invasives. Some invasives are actually good. We use the term glibly, but it still isn't that well defined.
Mr. Penner, I have a quick question for you.
Last week, one of our witnesses talked about nature deficit disorder among kids and made a very strong distinction between the behaviour of children who are playing in natural play spaces with trees, rocks, grass, and all that as opposed to these plastic and metal artificial play structures. Can you comment on the difference in how children react to those two types of play structures?
4:20 p.m.
City Naturalist, Naturalist Services, City of Winnipeg
I can't say that I'm an expert in that field. We have installed a nature playground at the Living Prairie Museum, and there's one at Assiniboine Park as well. I know from my experience with my own children that it seems like a simpler design, but they can spend just as much time, if not more, playing in the nature playground than they do on the more designed structures.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
I drive by the Living Prairie Museum twice a week and I know it reasonably well. Can you quickly describe the management that you do there to maintain the biodiversity?
4:20 p.m.
City Naturalist, Naturalist Services, City of Winnipeg
One of our big management techniques out there is doing controlled burns or prescribed burns to try to control some of the non-native grasses, the invasive species that are there. We also do a fair bit of manual weed control—removal of thistle, and things like that. We've begun plant propagation projects out there, collecting seeds from the species that are growing there and trying to actually propagate plants from them to improve the genetic diversity in Winnipeg.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate your comments.
I will begin with Mr. Kent.
We heard from Mr. Andrew Campbell of Parks Canada a week ago that, and I quote, “ecological integrity will continue to be the first priority as long as that's our legislative base”.
Could you comment on “as long as that's our legislative base”? We're hearing from stakeholders that there's concern about slippage regarding ecological integrity, and I would like to know what recommendation you would make to this committee regarding ecological integrity, and for what parks.
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I would start by saying that we believe very strongly that the current legislation should be maintained, as I think others would in the environmental field. It really is a gold standard internationally for which Canada has been recognized.
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
For national parks it should be, yes, but I think we have to take a slightly different approach to national urban parks, just because of the realities of those kinds of ecosystems.
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
As to more traditional kinds of national parks, I don't see any reason to waver from that standard.
We have been concerned about some instances in recent years. We felt that Parks Canada was slipping a little bit. We had a concern about the glacier discovery walk in Jasper National Park, for example. We felt it didn't really reflect that priority for ecological integrity. We sometimes have disagreements with Parks Canada on those matters, and we seek to draw those to the attention of the public. I think there has been a lot of public concern.
It's not an easy balance to strike, but I think it has to be clear what the first priority is, and what you do while still respecting the visitor experience.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
If I understand you correctly, the recommendation to this committee is that the first priority should be the ecological integrity of the national parks?
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
To the extent that this committee is going to deal with national parks, that is definitely our position. To the extent that it deals with national urban parks, I think we have to set the highest standard we reasonably can for the ecology in those parks, but it's not the same.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
We've heard the term “ecological health”. How do you define ecological health? Are there definitions out there? How do we come to that determination?
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I'm not aware of a generally accepted definition. It may exist.
I am not a biologist; I have to say that I am an economist. If you were to take my advice on biology, you would be poorly served.
We interest ourselves in these issues as an organization. We speak a little bit in the written document to the kinds of things we think should be pursued in the context of ecological health—restoration of river systems and their banks, the reintroduction of plants and trees, and the removal of invasive species from national urban parks.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Might it be possible to table with the committee an expansion along these lines? You have listed questions. This is a key concept. If you could provide more information—
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
We'll do a better job that way than with me ad libbing it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
You have mentioned ecological health. Parks Canada has mentioned ecological health. Should this be part of legislation?
