Environment Committee on May 7th, 2013

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Absolutely. In fact, I'd go further, and this may sound a bit heretical, but it will only sound heretical initially. I'd ask the committee members, and panel members as well, to consider framing a number of these questions in the context of habitat supply as opposed to habitat protection, and I'm going to tell you why. A fundamental ecological characteristic of habitat is, regardless of whether human beings are present on the landscape or not, that habitat will change. So I'm suggesting that collectively we think about, then, what do we want in terms of the benefits that habitat can supply to people? In doing so, that will force us not only to think about the present but the future. We want these benefits. We want these values to continue in perpetuity, in the case of, for example, fishing and hunting opportunities. But in order to do that, we have to think into the future and we have to think about some fundamental ecological imperatives—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'm sorry to cut you off. With the 10 seconds I have left, would you characterize that, perhaps for this committee's approach to looking at habitat conservation, a balance between economic stewardship and environmental stewardship could be contextualized within that comment that you just made? Would that be the correct approach to take?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

My short answer is yes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll move now to Ms. Duncan for five minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to come back to Mr. Wallis.

Mr. Wallis, we talked about targets earlier. Canada's committed to 17% of land being protected. We've protected 10%. We've committed to 10% of marine protected areas and we've done 1%.

We heard last week that in four years we could achieve our targets using the Aichi targets, quote, “as we would interpret it”. That concerns me, it sounds like changing the accounting rules. I'd like to know what you think of it and then talk about protected areas.

[Cliff Wallis]

I give a lot of testimony at hearings and before the courts. Measuring things is a very complicated subject. I like to look at multiple measures. That may be one measure that we use. The IUCN targets are another measure. Is the trajectory of our species at risk going up or is it going down? I think we need to look at all the measures and decide which ones shape public policy.

I think the IUCN has presented a credible system of measurement that's able to be verified, by and large. We may not be doing enough on the private land stewardship side, so that's another measure that we should roll into the system. You don't replace one with another, though. Multiple measures is the way I would go.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I like that. Multiple measures. I guess my concern is, “as we would interpret it.”

[Cliff Wallis]

If all you're trying to do is reach a number, I think you've failed. If the species are still going downhill—you have species that are actually going to disappear from Canada within years, not decades—that's a big problem. You can fool yourself with any number of numbers, even the ones IUCN uses, if we're not actually doing the right thing on the landscape. I think it's a very complicated topic, and we need to be doing a better job of it.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'll come back at the end to a recommendation regarding that, but I would like to ask you about SARA. Does SARA need implementation?

[Cliff Wallis]

Obviously. I think the sage grouse is a classic case of how it has failed in implementation. It's very young though, so we're trying to find our way through it. I don't think we've worked enough with local communities to implement that on the ground. There's been heel dragging. We've taken the government to court and tried to get emergency protection orders; it's not the way to do business.

We'd rather be doing it in a much more collaborative way. That's the way we do 90% of our work. But I don't think the door has opened for that. The resourcing is not there, the interest or commitment doesn't seem to be there. The will of the people out on the land is, so we need to get those two more in sync.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The recommendation is that SARA needs implementation, needs to be resourced. Would you like to make a recommendation there?

[Cliff Wallis]

I think we need to start some pilot programs where we work on landscapes. One of the best places to start is the grasslands of southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, looking at the PFRA pastures, the federal lands, provincial lands, at sage grouse, and all the complex of species at risk using ecological goods and services payments. Maybe a pilot program there would be a great place to start.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

You also talked about multiple measures. Would you like to make a recommendation? I also thought I heard you say we can fool ourselves by using any number, so what would be your specific recommendation here?

[Cliff Wallis]

I think we have great science expertise in this country. Policy-makers need to listen more to that expertise and not try to invent new measures. If they're unhappy with the measures, tell the scientists what they would like to measure to achieve their public policy targets. Make sure the two are matched. But don't fool yourself with trying to measure this number when in fact your policy target is for something else.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

You also mentioned a review of all federal lands. Would you like to make a recommendation there?

[Cliff Wallis]

Let's start somewhere. We can start small. Let's start with the federal lands within the grassland region, because it's a critically imperilled ecosystem globally, temperate grasslands are, and certainly there's a concentration of species at risk. I would say that's the very first place to start.

It should be a staged approach to reviewing our federal lands and their contributions to biodiversity.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We've come to the end of the members wishing to ask questions.

I'm going to take the chairman's prerogative and ask one short question, and hopefully I'll get a very short answer.

Mr. Wallis, you commented in your opening statement that we need to do a better job of engaging new Canadians and young people. I'm wondering if you could give me a 30-second or a one-minute response as to how we would do that.

[Cliff Wallis]

There are many programs; through NGOs is a great way to start. We have field trips. We've implemented field trips for new Canadians, specifically, to get them out into the landscape. Groups such as Nature Canada have “getting kids into nature” programs. Other organizations have the same.

Again, I don't think it's well resourced. Probably the school curriculums need to be looked at again. We focus so much on computers and being indoors, and we're getting afraid of the outdoors. We need to change that way of thinking.

It's a big topic, but I think it's absolutely essential if we're going to have Canadians well informed on the issue of conservation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Have you made that recommendation to our provincial governments? Education, as you know, falls under the provincial mandate.

[Cliff Wallis]

True, although there are a lot of extension services. There are the national parks. There are ways we can get people from cities into nature, into urban nature as well as other types of nature. Again, we need to do more of that, and the federal government can play a role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

I'm getting some static from my members, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.