How to best balance people and nature isn’t clear, but what is? The importance of getting the process right when trying to advocate for your better balance.

“I think process is something that’s very hard to get people excited about.”

Our former prime minister is right. But even if process doesn’t excite us, it matters. Why?

“The substance, the outcome, is very much a reflection of the process.”

But don’t take our former prime minister’s word for it.

Canada is a landscape littered with ideas that worked – and ones that didn’t. Ideas that attempted to put nature first, for the sake of the economy, and ideas that sought to help the economy, with the hope that it would eventually benefit nature.

Consider this, says pollster Shachi Kurl: “You look at the example of Rachel Notley in 2015, who said ‘we are going to do pipelines. We are going to build pipelines as a way to finance a transition to a less resource reliant economy in Alberta. We are going to make the investments to move to an economy that can keep your stomach full’. It sounded pretty good. We then experienced 4 years of economic chaos. All of that has an impact on whether you’re inclined to say, ‘you know, let’s transition to a more greener economy’. No. It’s ‘ I’m really worried about my mortgage. The value of my house is now gone in the tank. I can’t find another job, so I can’t leave. How am I going to start over again? I am now economically trapped. And you want to talk to me about transitioning to a green economy?”

The Notley-led government proceeded to lose the next election and though the federal government has imposed a federal carbon tax, many Albertans remain opposed to the tax and the idea of an energy transition, for the reasons Shachi outlined. 

Indeed, Shachi believes too few processes allow for dissenting voices. That hurts the idea trying to be advanced. Another problem? Even fewer processes bend to unforeseen events – like a global pandemic or war in the Ukraine. Instead taking into account new context – new realities – processes remain rigid and that furthers the divides in the population, as Shachi Kurl explained to Politico’s Playbook.

“If you’re talking about national cohesion — the idea that Canada is a country wherein provinces largely pull in the same direction — there are plenty of indications that the federation is fracturing, or at least fraying a little. Ontario and Quebec are doing their own thing vis-a-vis the notwithstanding clause on various pieces of legislation. In Saskatchewan, Scott Moe is talking of being a “nation within a nation” over carbon emissions. In Alberta, Jason Kenney wanted to take equalization out of the Constitution. It goes on.

The thing is, it generally plays well “at home” — i.e. at the provincial level. So between local popularity and a gaggle of federal party leaders generally happy to leave the provinces to their own devices, we find wildly varying ideas of Canadian identity. Where 89 percent of Ontarians consider themselves to be “Canadian first,” that sentiment drops to 27 percent in Newfoundland and Labrador, 38 percent in Quebec and 43 percent in Saskatchewan.”

And when different segments of the population – different provinces – start pulling in different directions, that’s a problem, says journalist  Josh Hall; “Oil is extremely important to people here in Alberta, and people in BC want to protect the ocean and all the wildlife all along the way from here to the ocean. And that’s completely valid for them to feel that way. So it’s kind of a no-win situation going on right now between Alberta and BC.”

Josh is a journalist in Red Deer, Alberta, and as he explains, the problem is often decision-making processes – on all sides – that seek to affirm their own worldview. 

“So many people are so set in their ways – their opinions – they literally don’t take any time whatsoever to ask questions of the other side and why the other side feels the way that they do. Open-mindedness is what it needs to be.”

And it’s not a new problem, Josh tells us: “This has been a thing for decades with pipelines and forestry issues. And whenever new things come up, it’s combativeness.”

Josh believes if there’s hope, it’s rooted in the fact “there’s a lot of misunderstanding between sides, in general. And that’s what we need to fix.”

But he’s not optimistic, “I don’t have much hope that people can just come to the table and make a compromise.”

Donna Kennedy-Glans says we can’t give up hope – that we must find better processes that lead to better decisions for all, “how can we not?”

As you might recall, Donna’s a former conservative Alberta cabinet minister who helped oversee the Alberta Fair Deal panel – a government-driven consultation process that sought to hear why some feel they’re not heard in policies that affect their future.

“I need to know how to engage with those people in a way that isn’t just placating them, or just going ‘oh, you know, I agree with you’. Because I don’t agree with them on everything.”

And when you do that, Donna believes we move away from decisions that assign winners and losers and to a place that values innovative solutions.

“There’s a point to that person who doesn’t like natural gas. There is a point to that person who’s saying ‘I want to keep business thriving.’. I’m saying, I’m not going to pick one or the other, I want both perspectives to show up in a strategy that transcends and includes both of those ideas.”

Economist and founding executive director of the Brookfield Institute, Sean Mullin, agrees with Donna and says, if you know your history, you know good process does yield innovative solutions.

“You look at historical examples. The quality of air in London, England in 1850. This was arguably the centre of the world, or at least the centre of the western world in 1850. Absolute dismal conditions from a breathing perspective due to coal and smog.”

What happened? 

“You needed political change, you needed social change, you needed regulation and financial incentives. But ultimately, it was innovation and technology. Alternative fuel sources, being and to kind of figure out how to deliver energy in a much more environmental, or at least, sustainable way.”

So, there is precedent we can move beyond us versus them outcomes, but that’s easier to do when natural catastrophe is literally choking you.  But if that example isn’t to your liking, “acid rain is a great example.”

Sean explains how good process yielded a solution that everyone could live with: “For 20-30 years there were debates around, ‘should we just prohibit this, and what would be the cost?’. They created an economic based model and it turned out to be wildly successful. And so, we achieved our outcomes, but it was based on a more sophisticated understanding of these industries. We need power. The economy and the consumers needed power, and it took that into consideration, and I think that’s why, in the long run, it became much more of a successful outcome.”

But is this actually possible in today’s world? Would the processes that worked for acid rain or London smog actually work in today’s Canada? Would they work for both urban demands and rural values? Would the decisions they yielded be big enough – bold enough – to actually super charge our economy and prosperity for all and safeguard our biodiversity in a meaningful way?

Sean Mullin says yes – with a caveat. “make sure you have a layer of economic literacy in your legislation. Make sure that your approach to conservation has an economic lens to it. What are the trade-offs? I think it’s both practical and the best way for success in the long run.”

Donna Kennedy-Glans adds “it means you have to really understand the detail and the complexity and the options. If you take one option off the table, what does that mean for something else? It’s a give and take, but it’s a better than – it’s a more than.”

And that doesn’t just require we learn from our past, but it also requires that we look to the future.

“I look at where the future’s going in term of how needs are changing. How human needs are changing.” Jim Bottomley is a futurist. A future-whatist? “By looking at the future and what is influencing the future helps you make plans.”

Jim has had incredible success helping businesses make better plans – for people and nature. It’s a balance that is fundamental to who he is, in part, Jim tells us, because of his Indigenous heritage. And striking the balance is easier than we think when we remember “we’re all driven by needs, and if we really look at where needs are going – our own, and the needs of people around us, we’re going to be happier in life.”

Jim adds “no matter what values drive us, we need to be aware of those needs, and each of those needs are often blind-spots.”

As an example?

“Smith Corona would say, if you asked them what business they are, they would have happily and merrily said, ‘we’re in the type-writer business’. But they went bankrupt thinking that. They were in the efficient word processing business.”

That’s why Jim believes the ideas that endure – the processes that work – are the ones that recognize evolving needs and then focus on addressing how they can be met. 

“The technologies that are coming out and way to operate different ‘how’s’ now, that are more sustainable really show great promise. The technology shows great promise.”

Business leader Hal Kvisle agrees, “I’m a big believer in technology. I’m not talking about iPads and cell phones; I’m talking about the kind of technologies that improve our abilities to mitigate environmental impact.”

But no matter who’s doing the innovating, Hal adds “I think it’s got to involve better communication, better dialogue between both the environmental activists and the operations.”

Endangered Ecosystem Alliance’s Ken Wu agrees and believes we all need to “building allies with ‘so called’ non-traditional allies.”

It’s a lesson Ken learned through his work to protect primary forests on Vancouver Island. What began as a campaign to end logging in a sensitive valley, morphed into something else. 

“We basically drove a huge number of people into the businesses in that area, as they came out to see the old growth forests. As money poured into their businesses, they started taking stances in favour of protecting old growth forests. Now not everybody was an environmentalist among those businesses, over time they because they supported it due to business, they learned more.”

That helped ease some opposition in the communities near the landscape Ken wanted to protect. But as you now know, not every rural resource community is looking for just any business opportunity – many are looking to protect their way of life, their culture. Ken worked to find common ground with loggers and what he discovered was the issue of raw log exports, which deprives loggers of work to mill the timber they cut.   

“We said that, if you’re going to cut the trees, you have to process them here. That solidarity slowly opened the door for them to eventually take a stance to save old growth forests. So now we have thousands of forestry workers saying end old growth logging, save the old growth. And that was largely out of an alliance that we made with them, and over time people started listening and learning and exploring new things. Just like we learned a lot about the industry and their situation.” 

The lesson?

“With the greater social breadth, you also have greater political strength to change the outcome, to changes laws, because it just takes people power of a lot of different kinds of people.”

Ken’s right. No matter where you stand, no matter your vision, good ideas become reality when diverse people rally together. 

As financial executive Mohnish Kamat says, “if you don’t bring those people on board your thinking, then your engagement model, if you are engaging, will not be as perfect as it should be.”

Which is why before any process is launched, Mohnish urges everyone to ask “how would an external audience see that proposition?”.

And be honest, Mohnish says, “with a bit of scepticism, and a bit of reality. It’s really important if you want things to get done.”

Mohnish explains “corporations are happy to listen. I think the more important thing is the other person on the other side. Be clear about what change they need to make, and are they open to options. If that doesn’t happen, we alter discourse.”

After all, Mohnish believes “if you aren’t clear on what you want changed, and it’s widespread in terms on where you want impact, or you are asking for too much, it’s not easy to change. Not for the corporation, not for the individual. I think the engagement is important, the focus is important, then the dialogue is important. So if you add all those three, then eventually now you will make an impact.”

And if you’re looking for examples of impact, look no further than Canada’s Indigenous economy, says innovator Libby Garg. Largely rural based, it’s valued at $32 billion – outpacing economic growth in the rest of Canada. Libby says, rather than relying on just resources or just conservation, Libby says the best success stories are the by-product of “the intellectual capital that exists within a given community – in the people, in the individuals that make it up.”

In other words, human ingenuity is finding hope for communities that for too long felt they had none, according to Libby. That should give us all hope that better solutions are possible when we put our minds to it.

“We need to be thinking critically about how we want to interact with the earth. What values are important to us? What do we need to protect? Where do we need to give? And what kind of a world are we comfortable leaving for the next generation? Because those are very much part of, not just indigenous conversations, but conversations that everybody needs to be having right now.”

It’s why Mount Robson’s Elliott Ingles says “we need youth to be creative and to support us with new ideas.”

Why?

“We’ve got a long way to go. These are just…protected areas. We can’t do it all, we need everybody to work together and just one person can make a huge difference.”

That’s why Nature Conservancy Vice President Nancy Newhouse says to be creative – to make a difference – do what you love.

“It’s about following your heart. So if you’re passionate about writing, or you’re passionate about art, to follow that, and link it to broader objectives in nature, I think that’s where you’ll find the most success.”

And, Nancy adds, remember that the most important skills to have in our society aren’t the ones you might assume; “I think that some of the most useful learning is philosophy and religious studies. That’s what drives decision making.”

BC Wildlife Federation’s Neil Fletcher adds: “Be a good writer and a good communicator. It doesn’t matter what else you do in your life. Those two things by themselves are so important in any position that you do.”

It’s a skill that Neil believes we must have in order to find better ways to work together with those we disagree with; “We need to be finding solutions where we can work together, put those little issues aside and focus on the big issue and take your position out of it.”

Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright agrees we need to work together – including with animals; considering animals; “What can we do to ensure that the animals have a good experience in their own life? It’s simple. We should be having that in our food policies, in our criminal law policies, and in our environmental policies, but it’s not a question asked very often, in fact we barely ask it at all.”

And remember, Barbara says, don’t assume you know who will and won’t support an issue you care about. “This idea that somehow conservatives don’t care about animals has not been my experience at all. In fact, we’ve seen the most of our major leaps forward in animal welfare policy coming from conservative regimes.”

And former Alberta cabinet minister Donna Kennedy-Glans agrees, “I am small ‘c’ conservative. I was raised in a traditional setting, so I have these values. But I also have lots of other values that aren’t conservative. Let me decide about me.”

Don’t put hunting advocate Neil Fletcher in a box either: “Full disclosure, I’m actually a vegetarian.”

Or compassionate conservation advocate Shelley Alexander: “There are ethical principles around hunting, but we go to a vegetarian based diet and if anybody spent any time in a prairie system, animals die, animals are displaced. There isn’t any clean way through any of these decisions.”

It’s why Twitter celebrity and thought leader Anthony the Thankful Outdoorsman says the most important way you can help resolve issues like this one is to not make assumptions: “So when you hear something, or somebody say that they are a hunter, don’t think trophy hunting. Don’t make the judgement. Ask questions, be open minded. If people are, then people will learn. But if people are one sided and very blinded, then they shut down and it becomes my way or no way. And that’s a problem.”

Which might be the most important point of all.

Every human is different. Every community is different. Every group of peoples are different. 

When we speak for or assume that subtle differences don’t exist, we do a disservice to our democracy and the ideals we stand for. We lose our ability to think critically. We can’t act creatively. We get locked into paradigms stale and failed.

And maybe turning the kaleidoscope will help. Maybe changing the dynamics of a decision-making axis from economy versus environment to culture or development will help us gain new appreciation for those we disagree with – help us better separate what we need from what we want.

Or not.

But if we’re not truly honest about our problems and the diversity of opinions, we render every debate stupid – and simplicity is where good ideas – good process – goes to die.

“So often have the expectation that there are simple answers to really complex problems. For every complex problem, there is a simple wrong solution.”

The former BC Lieutenant Governor Janet Austin is right.

It’s why it’s too late in the game to simply stand against something.

What matters now, according to Global National’s Dawna Friesen, is standing for something.

“What I am looking for now are those people who are taking those idea, who are not just saying – we need change and we should just listen to young people that are coming up with ideas and theories of how to bridge that divide between all the adults talking and the children who are saying ‘enough talk’.”  

And we need you to contribute your ideas and your passions and your skills to the problems at hand so we can find the better answers, says the IUCN’s Harvey Locke.

“None of us knows exactly how change is made – in any scale, by anyone, anywhere. But we do know that nothing changes if no one tries.” 

Because nothing changes when we don’t make our voice heard and everything can change when we do.

So, find your passion and propose your better idea. As Marie-Eve Marchand says “build your ideas for, not against.”

When you do? You can succeed. But don’t take my word for it.

“Go for it.”

Indeed.  

And who knows what better choices will mean for Mount Robson’s future – for our future. But we’ll never know if we don’t choose hope over despair, if we don’t choose acting over wishing. 

And that, in many ways, is the story of your classroom.

Mount Robson Provincial Park isn’t perfect – it’s still missing species that once called it home; it’s still struggling to balance people and nature even within a space designated for nature; it’s still working to build its relationship with its neighbours and repair its relationship with its former stewards.

“We’ll strengthen that relationship and we’ll just keep moving forward.” But as Mount Robson’s Elliott Ingles explains, it’s a place that matters and always trying for better here or anywhere is not only possible but important. “Mount Robson is just a special place. We’re at the beginning of the trail to a long road.”

But no matter how long or hard the road ahead might be, Elliott and his team have never quit – never stopped working for that better tomorrow.

And, ultimately, that’s all we can ask: To demand better of ourselves, of each other, of our communities and of our world. 

Demand better and try hard to do better: Make better decisions, be more thoughtful citizens and work together – in hard times and good, with those we love and with those we hate – to create better. 

For people. For nature. For all, today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

It might seem impossible. But it’s not. 

After all, this story is the real-world application of everything you’ve learned in this class. You now have the tools – and we already know you have the creativity. The answer to this problem is where politics and socials meet biodiversity and science. It’s where economics and careers meet research and experience. It’s the basis for our art, the springboard for our stories. . That’s not the challenge for Joel McKay or Fin Donnelly or Hal Kvisle or Libby Garg. It’s your opportunity to do your part, in ways big and small, now and in the future, to author your story – and ours – in ways no one has previously imagined.

In other words, the answers – the right answers, the better answers? They’re in you. 

Time to find yours and share them with the world. 

Your time is now.