Evidence of meeting #164 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biodiversity.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Excellent. Thank you so much for that additional information.
We're going to have three very quick rounds of questions. We have 10 minutes left, so we'll go three, three and three. That will take us to the end of the day.
Mr. Bossio, we go to you for your—
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Yes. Doctor Ray should still be online with us. We'll just bring her on.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay, great.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, all, so much for being here this afternoon. We really appreciate the testimony. There's a lot of valuable information here.
We've heard a lot from the previous witnesses about the value of biodiversity and the value of the investments we've made in protected areas with the $1.3 billion, which many of you around the table here today actually played a significant part in.
Harvey, it was great meeting you out in Banff and having that tour and talking about the importance of biodiversity there and how much of it exists.
There's that and the $1.5 billion for the oceans protection plan. Those are the investments we're making at this level, and those are in juxtaposition to what is happening provincially, and in particular in Ontario where we see Bill 108.
This is specifically for you, Ms. Ray, because of your familiarity with Ontario and what is happening there, with the cancellation of the 50 million tree program and the province no longer having an environment commissioner, along with their oversight capability.
We have 243 species at risk here in Ontario and now there is this whole pay-to-play type of legislation that we see in Bill 108 for developers and protected spaces. Can you give us a sense of what impact that's going to have here provincially now, and how that's going to really hurt what we're trying to do federally?
President and Senior Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, As an Individual
This is going to be a significant step backwards, although it's going to play out in implementation. Ironically, a lot of the changes will actually probably cause more red tape and more difficulty to sort out than the government realizes.
Bill 108 that you were referring to is a giant omnibus bill that had 20 pages of amendments to the hallmark Endangered Species Act. It will serve to decrease the number of species at risk through various means and will also provide lots and lots of leniency and discretion as to how habitat protection would occur through very many different routes.
For developers there will still be a proponent-driven process whereby developers will have options, including being able to pay into a particular conservation fund that, with many steps forward, would perhaps be applied in some fashion to benefit species at risk but will not have anything to do with the activity itself or the impacts.
There are lots of other problems as well, including the way they're organizing themselves with respect to this biodiversity issue. Mostly, they're now going to be splitting this between two ministries. The Ministry of Natural Resources will really focus on the subset of wildlife species that we use—so hunt, trap, fish and so on—and really put a great deal of effort towards that. Then the subset of species at risk that are still left to protect will be on the other side in another ministry, along with a diminished parks program as well.
This will play out as well in terms of investment. There will be lots of budget cuts and lots of shuffling of different staff into different ministries. It will be pretty chaotic and unclear, but really it's about being “open for business”. It's about being open for business, making things more easy to develop, and requiring proponents to jump through fewer requirements to be able to....
And then there will be very few actual—
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Let me cut you off there for just one second, though. It's open for business in one sense, but it's actually killing business in the long run because of the impact it's going to have on biodiversity and protected spaces. Would you not agree?
President and Senior Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. I don't think that in the long run this will be a really great recipe for developers and for mining companies and so forth. Even though ostensibly it's like that, it will still cause enormous red tape in other ways and will actually undermine some of the successes that have been undertaken through development—for example, for forestry and so forth—so it causes a great deal of concern.
This is going to involve mostly provincial land, so it's a really core problem.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We're going to go over to Monsieur Berthold for his three minutes.
You're welcome to share the time if you care to.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you.
Thank you all for being here today.
I'll try to be brief. The discussion has focused on decisions that are made at very high echelons. We are talking about the planet, the country and the province.
I was mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years, and we had situations where people asked us to take action to protect small species such as frogs. Residents wondered why projects were being halted to protect such species.
In all of this, we must never forget the people who will have to suffer the consequences of the decisions that are made, whether in terms of their region's development or their lifestyle. Unfortunately, that wasn't really mentioned in the documentation I saw. That's a general comment but one that's important. When these decisions are made, the impacts on indigenous and other communities—such as mine, Thetford Mines—need to be taken into account. We had asbestos mining for years, and it left the region devastated. It wasn't fit as a habitat because it was dead. What's going to happen to those people? The decisions that were made had repercussions on people, and that can't be forgotten.
Mr. Chair, I would've really liked to have the French version of the summary for policy-makers. That would've been very helpful given all the information it contains, information I would've liked to read and share with you. It's something we should follow closely.
I don't have enough time to ask questions, but I just want to stress how important it is not to overlook local decision-makers and the people affected by these decisions. Otherwise, the approach won't work, and people will voice their opposition.
Mr. Shields, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you. That's a good comment.
Mr. Locke, I think many of us here are familiar with the Flathead Valley. Are there things you would suggest that we do? That connectivity is a critical piece, as many of us know. Is there anything you would suggest that we could pursue in the future? We're coming back here at some point.
Chair, Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN), As an Individual
The Flathead Valley is, from a biodiversity species-counting point of view, the most important area in the country we could protect. It fits into this corridor from Yellowstone to Yukon in a critical way.
I think number one is engagement with the Ktunaxa Nation, which has an unresolved land claim or treaty situation in southeast B.C. The Jumbo development or resort is of great importance to them. It is also important for grizzly bears. We need a coherent regional approach that works with the Ktunaxa first nation that will result in proper protection of the values and the connection of those values, from the Flathead, which adjoins Waterton-Glacier, right up through to Banff.
Unfortunately, what's happening on the ground now is that the grizzly bear population is collapsing between the bottom of Banff National Park and the Flathead valley. The mountain goat population is collapsing between those two areas. I hear anecdotally from people who hunt that the elk population is down. Everything is not going well, because we've overwhelmed that landscape. We need to do something to reconnect it and protect the Flathead.
I thank you for your ongoing interest in that very special place.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
If we have time, I'd like you to tell us about the bison we saw. Where's the project at?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
After Wayne gets his three minutes, if there's a chance for an update on the bison, that would be great.
Chair, Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN), As an Individual
I would be happy to do that.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I have to do a speech on climate change in about 10 minutes.
I have a question that I'll open up to the floor. There are a couple of aspects I want to talk about. One is the nature deficit disorder and the potential impact it has on whether youth today care or don't care about species at risk, and what more we should be doing there.
The other is that we did consider looking at the species at risk legislation as a committee. Quite frankly, my concerns in that regard is that some might have wanted to weaken the legislation, while others think there's certainly need for improvement.
If you have a particular opinion on either of those issues, I'd be happy to hear from you.
Chair, Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN), As an Individual
I might defer to Justina on the Species at Risk Act, because she's lived and breathed it for the last 10 years.
President and Senior Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, As an Individual
In terms of the first question, on the nature deficit disorder—
Chair, Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN), As an Individual
I'm going to answer that one. You answer the SARA one.
President and Senior Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, As an Individual
I want to address that first, because I was referring to the loss of connection as having a bearing on the urgency of the issue. Climate change is much more immediately felt by the general population and it has been more successful in drawing media attention and people's concern to that issue an immediate one to address, whereas people don't always understand that the erosion of biodiversity and ecosystems really does have a direct bearing on their well-being that probably is going to be playing out more in the future. With people living more and more in cities, this nature deficit disorder is becoming an increasing issue, so it is absolutely very real.
At the same time, you see that when nature becomes more scarce, people flock to it. Particularly in crowded areas, either within or outside cities, people feel an innate need to go to visit these spaces in national parks. This is being shown by the pressure. This should show us that we need more of these green spaces and nature for this connection to keep going.
On the Species at Risk Act, I can totally understand your reticence and concern, because that in and of itself is not the only prong. Again, remember that species at risk are really just the tip of the needle here in terms of when species are in real trouble. That's when they show up on the list and we're in crisis situation.
What we really need to be focusing on in that equation is bolstering some of our processes that happen much earlier than that, so that species don't become at risk. We have to really focus on prevention and on species of special concern with monitoring and understanding at the regional scale, as Harvey just talked about, including how we might be able to fit all of these needs together, because the trade-offs are becoming more stark. We have to be thinking about biodiversity at large and not just species at risk.
I'm going to leave it at that and see whether my colleagues have anything to add.
Liberal
Chair, Beyond the Aichi Targets Task Force, International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN), As an Individual
I live in Banff National Park and the number of people coming now is staggering. I think we are starving the Canadian public and the world public of enough nice places to go in nature. It was a major loss when the Government of Alberta reversed itself on the Bighorn wildland area, which would have added a whole new protected area that could have served that huge global demand.
Canadians love nature. That's a widely held value from coast to coast, in big cities as well as among rural people and indigenous people, and we have an opportunity as a country to embrace that love of nature and chart a course that reflects it.
I think it's the same in Quebec as it is in the rest of the country. My wife is from Quebec, she's one of Lac-Saint-Jean's blueberries.
It's something we could really do well. The new Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto is a great thing. We could do a lot more of that.
If we thought of ourselves as a country that puts its love of nature on its sleeve....
We recently hosted an important global event in Montreal at the end of April called the Nature Champions Summit, where we had people attend from all over the world: 12 environment ministers from all over the world, philanthropists, and everything. It was a great event.
People look to Canada as a place that could be a leader on nature. It's in our brand. It's in our perception of ourselves and the world's perception of us, and we aren't leaders on nature now. We're really doing well catching up, but if you take the percentage of Canada that's protected right now, it's not going to quite make 17% of the land. We could push through it if we keep going. On the marine side, we'll get to the 10%. Brazil is already at 30% protected. Tanzania is at 30% protected. It is not impressive for us to be dragging our feet the way we are.
As for what we have done, again I'll flatter this committee in a sincere way. What you did with your report three years ago in kickstarting the process that led to the national advisory panel, that led to the budget allocation, that led to the strong effort on Canada's target 1, has really been fantastically transformative. I can't overstate how much it mattered that you did what you did when you toured the country and wrote that report.
I'm deeply grateful for it, and I hope this might serve as a springboard for the next government to say, “Canada has just begun, and now that we've done the catching up and setting things in motion, we are going to lead.” That would be wonderful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Excellent. That takes us to the end of our time.
Thank you to our three panellists this afternoon, and also to doctors Chan and Kerr for staying with us the duration of the afternoon. I really wish we had time this session of Parliament to continue the discussion, but this is, unfortunately, where we're at.
For committee members, the intention right now is to have our final meeting on Wednesday. We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer booked for one hour, and the departmental officials coming to do an update on CEPA. If it looks as though it's going to be another day somewhat like today and be disrupted by votes and other proceedings of the House, we may end up not having the meeting.
With that in mind, I'd like to take a moment to thank, first of all, the committee members. I think we have many things that we can truly be proud of in the work we've done together in this 42nd Parliament.
I'd also like to thank our amazing staff—our clerk and analysts from the library, our other staff who help us out tremendously every day, the technical people and the translators. Thank you, each and every one of you for the support you've given to us in the committee. We may be able to say our thanks again on Wednesday, but on the off chance that we cannot, I wanted to at least get that in.
With that, folks, we're adjourned.