Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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?

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  It depends. If you say no to industrial development forever, that cost is totally different from—

Environment committee  It could be in the billions of dollars.

Environment committee  We're not saying no to industrial development any time in the future. We're just saying there's so much of it on the landscape right now. There are social pressures. They can't find people to actually do the work up there. There doesn't seem to be any rush to continue, so it depends how you measure things.

Environment committee  It's a moratorium on new oil sands development. So that means not accepting new applications for oil sands development. You can shade that however you like, but the group working on cumulative effects management—actually working industry and NGOs—came up with a way of developing over 50% of that area for oil and gas development and protecting caribou.

Environment committee  The moratorium would be on new applications, going forward.

Environment committee  Well, it's until we get the plan implemented and working. I don't have a timeframe. All I know is that there's nothing in place right now. There's no moratorium, although it looks like it's just changing right now. Within the last week the Alberta Minister of Energy has actually said—

Environment committee  No. Let's protect caribou first.