Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Siekaniec, I would like to hear you talk about the impact of climate change on habitat conservation.

Is it a significant factor that the federal government should address with respect to habitat conservation? Could that be of assistance?

[Greg Siekaniec]

I think that any science-based organization needs to be thinking about and cognizant of climate change impacts. At some point you are going to have to face the adaptation strategies that species are going to need to be sustained within a healthy and operating ecosystem. Part of that is going to be through delivery of the connectivity that is needed to allow natural expansions and changes in habitat and habitat use by species.

So the answer is yes. We're going to have to be paying attention to that, as will any scientific-type organization with a conservation mission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

We'll move now to Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks, witnesses, for all the great ideas that you've been proposing. If you don't mind I would like to single out Mr. Bradstreet for thanks.

I've been trying to convince committees around this place that targets are a trap laid by unscrupulous politicians for unwary electors. Your comment that we might preserve Ellesmere Island and do nothing about the longhorn antelope, I think you said, in southern Alberta and that we have to be more sophisticated than that is an excellent articulation of my concern. I'm almost thinking I should get it printed and framed and put it on my wall. I want to thank you for that articulation.

Apart from that, I have questions for the Nature Conservancy. I'll start with Mr. Lounds and begin with the 2007 commitment by the Government of Canada, which I understand was $225 million over the last five years or so.

Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

Yes.

It was $225 million over six years.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

How many acres of land were conserved as a result of that?

[John Lounds]

It was used in durable or permanent conservation of 875,000 acres.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

I understood you to say that all or a good portion of that 875,000 acres would not be calculated under one of the categories for Aichi. Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

That's correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I want to try to understand that, so I'd like to tell you what I've gleaned from the evidence, and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong.

The old IUCN management categories did not include the one that has now been added by Aichi and is known as effective area-based conservation measures. Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

The IUCN categories were designed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The question of which is adopted as a definition for international agreements or treaties is somewhat different when it comes to the IUCN. Traditionally the definitions for IUCN categories have been used. So we still have those, but the Aichi agreement added other effective area-based conservation measures. I think at this point in time there are still conversations going on about exactly what is meant by that. I think Canada should get its voice into that discussion.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

And if we wanted to deal with the lands that have been conserved, that 875,000 acres we're talking about, do you think that with an appropriate interpretation of effective area-based conservation measures, those might be included?

[John Lounds]

We believe they would be included—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I think I got the point that—

[John Lounds]

—as would be Ducks Unlimited's properties as well.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think I got the point that a major reason why such lands don't count under the previous categories is the fact that there remains a provincial jurisdiction-based possibility, however remote, of mineral development on some of those lands. Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

I will pass this question over to Michael.

[Michael Bradstreet]

I'd like to try to help the committee understand the philosophy of IUCN's protected area strategy.

They take a triangle from the centre of the earth to the top of the atmosphere through a property boundary, and all subsurface, surface, and above-surface rights are to be restricted for conservation.

Globally, everybody has forgotten what happens above the surface, because there are airplanes, there's climate, and there's light pollution, but the bureaucrats who run IUCN have focused very strongly on the subsurface aspect of conservation.

From a biodiversity conservation perspective, if the subsurface rights are not developed, it doesn't affect the conservation value that we're aiming to conserve. Even if they are developed, depending on how they're developed, it may not affect the conservation values that we're trying to conserve.

That's really what its basis is—not adding on the other effective area-based Aichi targets. It's this philosophical position of IUCN of what a protected area is.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Right, so there—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Actually, Mr. Woodworth, the time is up.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Holy cow!

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Time flies when you're having fun.

Mr. Toet, you're welcome to pursue that line of questioning.

I recognize Mr. Toet, for five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm not going to go too far into it. Maybe Mr. Woodworth will have a chance to come back to that.

I did want to thank all of our guests here today for the great work they do.

I do find it somewhat shameful that for much of the work you have accomplished you get lip service as being greatly appreciated. You're doing great things, yet at the same time you're being told that it doesn't really count. I can sense some of your frustration in that and, hopefully, we can work forward to having the great work you do be really and truly counted, because it should be.

That brings me to Mr. Scarth. It concerns me when we hear of these things not being counted. The program that you're running with Alice is a great program, but it raises a red flag for me. I don't want to discourage the program, because I agree with you that it's largely the way to go, but once again I think we're going to have a situation where it's not going to count.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Jonathan Scarth]

I find the IUCN discussion to be somewhat akin to measuring inputs and ignoring outputs, because any of the lands that we're talking about may not be productive, biologically, but they may be more productive if they're managed. So I think it's much more important that we measure the biodiversity outputs of the lands that we are investing in, as opposed to measuring some artificial construct of what inputs are going in.

We have that capability. For example, waterfowl get counted every spring by the Canadian Wildlife Service, and we have indexes of how many birds are in prairie Canada and across the U.S. I believe that these are much more useful measurements of the health of the landscape than some construct of whether this land is set aside or not. It may be better to manage these lands to produce wildlife than to do otherwise.

In many areas of Manitoba, for example, the most productive areas for wildlife production are on the privately owned landscape, not in the parks where the forest is over-mature and not actively managed. You find big game exiting parkland areas to go into the farmland, because that's where the food is, that's where alfalfa is for them to eat.

I think it's much more important that we focus on outputs from our investments, as opposed to the inputs. I think there are some signs of that starting to happen.

The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute has set up monitoring stations around Alberta to measure biodiversity over time, and I think that kind of model is much more interesting to me than these other categories.

I agree with you that the fact there may be some potential for subsurface development adds insult to injury. Often those developments have fractional impacts on wildlife production. Especially horizontal drilling for oil and gas, you can have oil extraction take place with minimal or no surface disturbance. To have that impact, the classification and some important yardstick, to me, is absolutely ridiculous.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I can actually attest to what you're saying; I watch it all the time on my own property. I have a bush behind me and I have a farmer's field across. I get to see it all the time with the wildlife, especially in the fall, with the deer coming out and feeding in the evening and going back into the bush again, and also with all the ducks and geese going through the same process. We see it all the time, so there is a great conservation aspect that's already on that working landscape.

I just want to pick up quickly, Mr. Siekaniec, on your comment about developers. I'm assuming that you're talking about developers within the urban areas who are actually embracing this whole concept of creating a wetland rather than just a retention pond. There's value in it in a lot of ways, not just ecological value. Perhaps you could speak to that aspect of it too.

Also, one of our other witnesses said that people were actually willing to pay a premium for properties around those types of facilities. Maybe you could speak a little bit as to why you would see a premium attached to that, where people are really willing to pay extra dollars to live in close proximity to a wetland setting like that within their residential area.