Thank you.
Thank you for the invitation to come and talk to you about the recommendations around a national conservation plan.
At the outset, I think one thing that needs to be said is that when you take a look at environmental issues, conservation issues, agriculture has been at the forefront of that, right from the time farming started. The biggest resource we have is our land base, and conserving that land base and making sure that there's a diversity there I think is critical to the profitability of our businesses.
If I were speaking to the agriculture committee, I imagine everyone would know what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is. Just so this group understands, we represent about 200,000 farmers across the country. We have provincial farm organizations and a number of commodity organizations that participate in the discussions at CFA and help to establish some of the policy work we do.
First, with respect to the concept of a national conservation plan, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture really applauds the idea of moving ahead with something like this. We actually attended the initial stakeholders meeting that was held by Minister Kent. I thought it was interesting to be sitting around that table with a number of different stakeholders with the goal of conservation. I think engaging all of the partners in that discussion is critical up front.
You have our background paper. I'm not going to go through every word in that document, but I will highlight a few things that are in there.
I guess the first thing is the whole economic side of agriculture. Agriculture is responsible for a tremendous number of jobs in the country and 8% of our GDP. We're the largest manufacturing sector in Canada.
The reason I say that is because we have to recognize that when we're moving ahead with any conservation effort, we have to be conscious of the economic realities of the sector that could be affected by it. We quite often hear from our members that one of the biggest frustrations is that when you get into regulatory frameworks, the cost of dealing with those regulations can sometimes actually undermine the bottom line.
If it's done right, conservation can actually contribute to the bottom line. I know we've done things on our own farm where we've made steps to improve wildlife habitat and water quality. Indirectly, over time, we've actually seen the productivity on our farm increase. So sometimes you can end up with those win-win types of situations.
The second point in the brief talks about agriculture on the Canadian landscape. Now, 7% of the land is in agricultural use, but one thing you have to keep in perspective is that this 7% of the land is usually at the interface between urban and rural populations. That is where a number of the conservation issues really come to a head. It's that interaction between humans and habitat that really causes sometimes concern, and I think that is where agriculture can have the greatest impact moving forward.
One of the other things you'll note in the background document is that 30% of the farms in Canada now have what's called environmental farm plans. Basically, these are plans that are put together where farmers sit down, take a look at the environmental risks on their farms, do an assessment of those risks, and put a plan in place to try to address them.
I think one thing that's noteworthy is that the environmental farm planning process was actually started by farmers themselves. When they recognized that there was starting to be public concern about the practices out there, they started putting these environmental farm plans in place as a way to try to address some of those concerns.
I guess the key point, though, in moving ahead with any national conservation plan is making sure that stewardship and innovation are part of that whole process, and with that there would be incentives to make things happen. One of the difficulties is making people understand that farmers have this land base that is very expensive, and if you're going to set aside land for some conservation purposes, there may be costs incurred with that.
It boils down to this: if there's a benefit for all of society, there has to be some way of sharing some of those costs. The combination of stewardship, innovation, and incentives is usually a fairly effective way of getting conservation on the landscape.
There's a need for a science-based approach. I think all too often we see rules and regulations develop with the idea that this will solve the problem, but we have to make sure that they're founded on sound research.
A good example would be the recently announced changes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and moving them away from municipal drains, which are drainage ditches designed to drain farmland, but the fish decided there was a good water course there so they moved into it. But one of the science things behind that is that those drains have to be maintained from time to time. So you may be damaging one drain, but overall the habitat—because you're doing that ongoing maintenance—is creating it. So there is a critical need for a science-based approach.
The other thing I think we should look at with the whole national conservation plan is a way of using that as part of branding Canada. More and more we're seeing retailers starting to look at environmental qualities in the products that are produced, and I think there is a unique opportunity, if we get this national conservation plan right and we're doing the right things for the environment, that we can actually spin that into a marketing initiative both nationally and internationally with the Canada brand.
The other point when you're looking at a national conservation plan is finding a way to harmonize across departments and make sure that your regulations are approached in a systematic manner. One of the things, working with a national conservation plan, is that likely one of the biggest challenges is figuring out how you get all of the different jurisdictions agreeing with the direction that needs to be set. This is because you'll have provincial governments, conservation authorities, and the national government looking at how you implement it, so harmonizing the regulations at all three levels of government and harmonizing the approach are critical.
Concerning next steps, there are a number of land policy initiatives that are described in the document. Environment Canada has activities they're involved with. We have the Growing Forward approach that's taking place now with agricultural policy planning. There are also other organizations that are working on conservation initiatives. Delta Waterfowl is one I can mention, and Ducks Unlimited. There are a number of those groups that are critical in making sure that the national conservation plan works because it's going to be about building the partnerships as we move ahead. I think those partnerships hold the key to the success of having a national conservation plan that would actually have support of a broad range of people from a number of different sectors in Canada.
With those brief comments, I will stop talking there. I think that likely the dialogue back and forth between us will likely twig a few issues for you to discuss, and then maybe in questions and answers we can get into more detail.
Thank you.