Evidence of meeting #38 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jeffrey Hutchings  President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution; Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University; As an Individual
Martin Willison  Adjunct Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies and Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Todd Dupuis  Executive Director, Regional Programs, Atlantic Salmon Federation
Frederick Whoriskey  Vice-Chair, Education, Dalhousie University, Huntsman Marine Science Centre
David Coon  Executive Director, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Steve Burgess  Acting Director General, Ecosystem Programs Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Ward Samson  Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation
Soren Bondrup-Nielsen  Treasurer, Head, Department of Biology, Acadia University, Science and Management of Protected Areas Association
Margo Sheppard  Chair, Canadian Land Trust Alliance
Betty Ann Lavallée  National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Susanna Fuller  Coordinator, Marine Conservation, Ecology Action Centre
Andrew Hammermeister  Assistant Professor, Nova Scotia Agricultural College; Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada
Dwight Dorey  National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

Shall I skip you, Mr. King? You're sort of with Mr. Burgess.

Mr. Samson.

12:15 p.m.

Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation

Ward Samson

In your question you asked me to give you three top priorities?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

First of all, have I missed anything? Second, what are the top things we should focus on? I mentioned three as a—

12:15 p.m.

Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation

Ward Samson

At the same time, when we're dealing with—

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Order. Time has expired, so we're going to need to keep your answer short, please.

12:15 p.m.

Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation

Ward Samson

Okay.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is we can't compartmentalize things, put them in different compartments. We have to manage for the whole system, and it isn't going to be easy. If you start listing top priorities, that's what gets managed, and then something else gets left out. You have to encompass the whole gamut. I think we have to be in concert with the United States. We have to look at the whole North American system. You can't manage Cape Breton Island for coyotes. You can't manage northern territories for caribou or polar bears, etc. You have to manage a whole system. If you put a ban in and say I'm not going on the hunt, you compartmentalize it. You put it into a little compartment and say whoops, there's a nice little park, but you're not managing for wildlife; you're just managing people.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you so much.

I want to thank each of the witnesses for taking their valuable time coming here and being with us today. We really appreciate your sharing your expertise with us.

Colleagues, we are going to suspend. We will reconvene at 1:30.

We're suspended.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

I call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome each of the witnesses to the 38th meeting of the Standing Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development as we continue our study on the development of a national conservation plan. This will be the last group of witnesses we'll hear from before the committee meets to create a report. It's really special to have each of you here as we conclude our study on this important topic.

We will begin with the Canadian Land Trust Alliance. Margo Sheppard, the floor is yours.

1:30 p.m.

Margo Sheppard Chair, Canadian Land Trust Alliance

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Margo Sheppard and I'm the volunteer chair of the board of the Canadian Land Trust Alliance. I'm an environmental planner with experience in the public sector, and for the last 14 years I've been the executive director of a land trust in New Brunswick called the Nature Trust of New Brunswick.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee on something that is fundamental to the identity of our country, which is our natural heritage. The Canadian Land Trust Alliance, or CLTA, as I'll call it, is Canada's national land trust alliance and represents a membership of over 55 land trusts from coast to coast to coast.

For those of you who may not be aware, a land trust is a grassroots, non-profit, charitable organization whose principal objectives include the long-term protection and management of ecologically sensitive lands for nature and the public good. CLTA member land trusts are supported by a network of over 200,000 individual members and donors and over 20,000 volunteers. Collectively, our land trusts have protected over 6.3 million acres of land, which contribute to Canada's network of diverse natural protected landscapes.

CLTA member land trusts have done much over the years to gain the support of the citizens and landowners in Canada through the development and subsequent adoption of the Canadian Land Trust Alliance standards and practices. The land trusts of Canada have shown their commitment to high standards for technical and ethical operation, as well as continuous improvement. Land donors appreciate this commitment.

In the past century Canadian governments have created an impressive array of a system of national and provincial parks and wildlife refuges. Despite such advances, these public lands, which comprise less than 10% of Canada's land mass, are inadequate to safeguard our water, wildlife, and fragile ecosystems from human and industrial impacts, particularly in and around the settled and working landscapes of southern Canada and particularly in this era of climate-induced stressors.

We're faced with having to rely on more than public lands to meet our country's international commitments for conservation. This means that privately held property—conserved via the work of land trusts, but that ultimately is managed for the public good—takes on increased significance. People need natural areas and open spaces close to where they live. Canada loses 150,000 acres of wetlands, woodlands, and agricultural land every year to development, and as our population grows, predominantly in southern Canada in areas of high biological diversity, so does the need to conserve our watersheds and natural places to ensure our communities' resilience.

The pace of protection must also dramatically increase or many significant land and water resources will be lost or degraded by development and urban sprawl. Increasingly, many land-rich, cash-poor Canadians want to voluntarily donate their land to organizations for the purposes of conservation. This transfer of property gives the conservation community a unique opportunity to add to and possibly complete the necessary network of parks and wildlife areas in our lifetime. We're ready and willing to do this in partnership with government.

We applaud the federal government for the efforts to develop a forward-thinking national conservation plan and to become even more involved in protecting Canada's natural landscape. The CLTA would like to offer the committee the following three recommendations for consideration:

First, we would encourage the establishment of a cost-shared stewardship endowment fund that could be accessed by the conservation community to ensure protected lands are managed and maintained in perpetuity. This fund would operate as a public-private partnership that involves shared funding for the wise and long-term management of these conserved areas by their community stewards--i.e., land trusts and their partners.

Second, we recommend that the national conservation plan build on the work already done by community-based volunteer groups and enhance these efforts by supporting strategic conservation plans reflecting the needs of towns and rural areas where they operate.

The CLTA and its partners have recognized that by encouraging land trusts to be more strategic they will help them become better positioned to prioritize and direct resources towards conserving the most sensitive natural areas, to connect people with the land and the water that sustain them, and to advance an understanding of the relationship between land use and water quality and quantity.

To this end, we have worked with provincial partners on a Canada-wide watershed planning initiative directed at local and regional land trusts, to address four key goals: conserving more and the best land in the most effective manner; connecting people with the land and conserved land to other conserved land, such as wildlife nodes and corridors; sustaining the conservation movement by making it more financially stable, inclusive, and networked; and collaborating with landowners, local communities, and other allies to align land objectives with individual and community needs.

Should the committee choose to adopt a national conservation plan with a private land conservation component, the CLTA would be an excellent intermediary, for example, in a program to re-grant land to grassroots land trusts in order to achieve government and community goals.

Third, we encourage the government to recognize that in addition to conserving and protecting natural areas in the working landscape, the conservation community creates employment opportunities primarily in rural and more remote areas of Canada.

A 2010 report commissioned by Environment Canada compares the jobs impact of stimulus funding for grey infrastructure—for example, pipes and arenas and roads—with the impact of ecological restoration and stewardship, or what we call in the land trust community “green infrastructure”, which are key functions of land trusts. The study found that for every million dollars spent on grey infrastructure, three jobs were created. By contrast, for every million dollars of spending on ecological restoration and stewardship, 22 jobs were created.

In summary, then, the need for conservation is growing as the concern of Canadians deepens over our nation's finite water resources and land base. A national conservation plan should aim to protect private lands through strategic partnerships, planning, and the acquisition of ecologically sensitive property. A focus should be on lands that are critical for water quality protection—flood plains, wetlands, and headwater areas—in order to build resilience in our ecosystems. The national conservation plan should strengthen this capacity, reconnect people to the land, and ultimately help build sustainable communities.

CLTA's member land trusts have done much over the last few years to gain the support of the citizens and landowners of Canada. The collective achievements are all the more remarkable when one considers that every acre conserved has been through voluntary actions of private citizens.

The CLTA appreciates the opportunity to put forward these recommendations for consideration. If implemented, they will enable land trusts and owners of Canada's significant natural areas to increase the amount of ecologically sensitive land brought under long-term protection.

We are committed to working with the Government of Canada and all parliamentarians to ensure the swift and successful implementation of the measures proposed.

Thank you very much.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you, Ms. Sheppard.

Next we will hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We have with us today National Chief Lavallée and National Vice-Chief Dorey.

Thank you for welcoming us into your traditional territory.

We look forward to your testimony. You have ten minutes. Thank you.

1:40 p.m.

Chief Betty Ann Lavallée National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

It's an honour to be here on the territory of the Mi'kmaq peoples, my people, to speak to you concerning the national conservation plan.

I'm a Mi'kmaq woman. I am also an Indian Act registered Indian with status to an Indian Act band here in Nova Scotia. I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, also called CAP, which is one of Canada's five national aboriginal organizations.

For 41 years we have represented the rights and interests of off-reserve non-status and status Indians, and Métis aboriginal peoples living in rural, urban, remote, and isolated areas throughout Canada.

The congress applauds this bold initiative to produce a national conservation plan and wishes to see it become a national priority. We are very supportive of this important plan and wish to be engaged every step of the way.

Preserving our biodiversity is not going to be a simple task. Canada's Aichi commitment to protect 17% of our lands and 10% of our water by 2020 demonstrates a very big challenge.

In my remarks to you today I propose to respond with some early high-level thoughts directed to the six questions that the chair has posed.

I will start with the purpose of the national conservation plan, which I will call the NCP. The congress supports the idea of developing an NCP that builds on existing successes and that reflects long-term thinking. We are supportive of developing and employing innovative approaches to conservation for terrestrial, marine, and freshwater components. Promoting conservation and awareness of natural species and the species that underpin the environment, human health, and the economy reflect an aboriginal approach to the environment.

Aboriginal peoples have successfully lived with Mother Earth since the beginning of time. Mother Earth and all the creatures on her represent our history, our culture, and our identity as peoples. A sacred trust relationship exists especially between aboriginal peoples and Mother Earth.

Aboriginal peoples are peoples of the land, as are you. Many of us still live off the land and its resources and are the stewards of biological and cultural diversity. Our rights, cultures, livelihoods, traditional knowledge, and identities are based on a deep relationship with land, waters, and resources.

The great promise of the industrial age was progress without limit and without end. The aboriginal sacred trust relationship with the environment stands in sharp contrast to this philosophy. We believe that the welfare of future generations should not be jeopardized by the actions of today's generation. We believe it's appropriate to think seven generations ahead and consider whether the decisions we are going to make today would benefit our children seven generations into the future.

Many wise people have commented on the human inability to be mindful of the long-range consequences of our actions. Some people believe that change is now running out of control and fear the risks involved with new industrial technologies. I don't. I think we can all agree that when it comes to the NCP, it will be up to this generation to shape it, share it, and then look after it.

From our positive point of view, the NCP can be a landmark in the conservation of Canada's biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources.

What should the goals of the NCP be? Broadly speaking, the congress views the NCP as requiring bold and action-orientated goals to protect, connect, restore, and engage. The congress would like to recommend the following: protect and conserve Canada's biodiversity and ecosystems; connect a network of large marine, freshwater, and terrestrial protected areas; restore degraded ecosystems and recover habitat for endangered species; and engage and educate Canadians concerning the benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The guiding principles should set out that aboriginal peoples wish to work cooperatively with the Government of Canada, as well as with the provinces and territories, to develop and implement the NCP. CAP and our affiliate organizations wish to work cooperatively with federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions to achieve the NCP goals. As a matter of fact, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has worked with the Department of the Environment over the last ten years and with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to form management boards, to form SARA, and on the NACOSAR boards.

The congress would like to recommend two guiding principles. The first would set out that aboriginal peoples would play an essential role in carrying out the goals and objectives of the plan. The second would reference the traditional knowledge of aboriginal peoples and that it must be considered in the development and implementation of the NCP.

What conservation priorities should be included in an NCP? For aboriginal peoples, climate change brings a real threat to our cultural survival and undermines our aboriginal rights and interests. Climate change and the associated effects of ecosystem changes have profound implications for the development and implementation of the NCP. One of the cornerstones of the NCP should be consideration of species at risk. The human race has exterminated species at an alarming rate, and in Canada the number of endangered species grows each day. Currently there are 640 species that are at risk, and the list will keep on growing.

Loss of diversity is considered one of the world's most serious environmental problems. The NCP needs to address this as a conservation priority. A second conservation priority requires the inclusion of invasive alien species, which have significant environmental, economic, societal, and trade impacts on Canada. Invasive species pose a threat to many of the medical plants used by aboriginal peoples. The protection of Canada's aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from the risk of invasive alien species must be addressed through the NCP.

There are significant challenges ahead in the implementation of the NCP, and most of these will evolve during the years ahead. We would see the priorities include halting the loss of biodiversity and building ecosystems' resilience; educating Canadians concerning biodiversity; undertaking effective monitoring and reporting, including progress on the NCP; mitigating climate change; and establishing and managing a comprehensive network of protected areas, both terrestrial and aquatic.

The congress is seeking five specific implementation priorities for aboriginal peoples: that full and effective participation of all aboriginal peoples take place in conception, design, and implementation of the NCP; that the NCP ensure aboriginal traditional knowledge is an integral part of the conservation actions; that the federal, provincial, and territorial governments support the participation of aboriginal peoples in the implementation of the NCP; that the NCP be in full conformity with and promote the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention on Biological Diversity and all other treaty and land claims agreements that are currently in place; and that the federal government support aboriginal participation in the monitoring of habitat change and conservation impacts.

What consultation process should the minister consider when developing the NCP? What I'm about to say is nothing new. He's heard this over and over. Every decision taken by the crown affecting or impacting aboriginal peoples or our interests is a matter that is consistent with the duty to consult. The crown's obligation to fulfill this duty is grounded in the honour of the crown and the protection of aboriginal rights and interests in the Constitution. The crown's duty to consult and to accommodate our interests is firmly rooted in national and international law. It's important in the implementation of the NCP that CAP and Environment Canada develop innovative approaches that take into account the unique circumstances of status and non-status Indians living off reserve and the Métis.

Consultation will require ongoing dialogue, and accommodation will mean balancing aboriginal rights and interests with those of government and non-aboriginal interests. The constitutional duty to consult with aboriginal people is an obligation intended to promote negotiation and relationships rather than your judicial dispute resolution. We support Chief Justice McLachlin’s view that “negotiation is a preferable way of reconciling state and Aboriginal interests”. We believe that there is a middle ground in all of the discussions that are going on, that there do not have to be paralyzed, polar positions.

I would conclude with some parting thoughts as you undertake your work. What about the seventh generation? What are we going to create for them? What will they have? When I talk about the seventh generation, I'm not talking about only aboriginal children or the aboriginal seven generations. I'm talking about all our grandchildren and grandchildren yet unborn.

[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

Thank you.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you, Chief Lavallée.

Now we will hear from Ecology Action Centre. Ms. Fuller, you have ten minutes.

1:50 p.m.

Susanna Fuller Coordinator, Marine Conservation, Ecology Action Centre

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me, and thank you to the rest of our panel members.

I know that a lot of you learned a lot about the Ecology Action Centre yesterday. I'm sorry I missed that field trip, but I'm glad you had a chance to get outside.

You already have my statement. I'm just going to add a couple of things that came to mind as I was thinking about this presentation today.

On a personal note, I spent the last five days with my three-year-old, and I was thinking a lot about the national conservation plan at the same time as I was being a single parent. There were some parallels between parenting a toddler and what I think a national conservation plan should entail. I'll go into more detail on these four points later.

First, a strong framework is necessary. Second, there should be consequences for not following the rules, especially when you're stuck in the Toronto airport for four hours. Third, you need to have some threat of consequences. That's important. Fourth, there need to be incentives that follow that framework, and then you need to talk about and relate them to the successes.

I think that's where the analogy stops. It was something I was thinking about while I was sitting last night in the airport for a long time.

The other point is that the Ecology Action Centre has often talked about “action” being our middle name. I thought it might be a good idea for the national conservation plan to adopt “action” somewhere. Maybe it should be the national conservation action plan. I know that particularly with the EAC, we think a lot about what we do and how that drives us to action and what that means.

I'm not going to get into as much detail as I have in my written statement, but I'll go over who the EAC is briefly, and then I'll go into the recommendations I have.

The EAC is Nova Scotia's oldest and largest community-based environmental organization. It was founded in 1971, as part of a class at Dalhousie University. Today we have a staff of 35 people. We also have 600 volunteers and 800 members. Our mandate, in some ways, is unique for an environmental organization. It includes working towards a sustainable environment and a sustainable livelihood, so we think about the economy and the environment in almost everything we do.

We cover a very wide range of issues. We do our work in Nova Scotia, but we also do work outside of Nova Scotia. We look at wilderness protection, sustainable forestry, local food, urban gardens, food security, renewable energy, sustainable and active transportation, coastal protection, water conservation, climate change, sustainable fisheries and seafood, and policy at the provincial, national, and international levels. All of those are pieces of what we see as important in working towards a sustainable environment.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Ms. Fuller, we need you to speak a little slower for our interpreters.

1:50 p.m.

Coordinator, Marine Conservation, Ecology Action Centre

Susanna Fuller

Absolutely.

As an example of a long-lasting change we are quite proud of, in 1971, the year we were founded, we started the first recycling program in Nova Scotia. Now Nova Scotia gets visits from international delegates who look at our recycling and composting program. Today we have a reduction of at least 50% in landfill waste. So we think things like that can tip people's behaviour and fundamentally change how people do things.

I work as the EAC marine conservation coordinator, and because of the federal jurisdiction over the marine environment through the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act most of my experience is with national laws and policy, and more recently with international laws and commitments related to the UN fish stocks agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The work of the marine staff the EAC spans the very local, from our co-creation of “Off the Hook”, community-supported fishery, to the international, through our work at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. We co-hosted the International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, which is now a biannual international conference. The reason I mention this is that we found that research and real information was really key to getting the government to take action around protection. We're now proud that Nova Scotia is home to the first deep-water coral conservation areas in Canada.

Access to a healthy environment, clean air, safe and locally produced foods, affordable and sustainable energy and transportation, intact wilderness areas, and species diversity are all parts of the good quality of life Canadians expect. Increasingly, however, these are at risk.

With regard to a national conservation action plan, I'd like to make recommendations in four key areas. I'll use examples from the work the EAC has done over the years to illustrate examples of the importance of these points.

The first one is a regulatory framework, including targets and timelines. An NCP must be developed within a strong regulatory framework that protects Canada's species and habitats and incents conservation as part of doing business in this country. Without legally binding commitments, a national conservation plan would lack accountability.

As an example, last week I attended the final meeting of the decade-long process to bring integrated management to the eastern Scotian Shelf. Despite years of work by ocean stakeholders, a collaborative plan, and moderate willingness to implement the plan, the initiative essentially did not leave the pages of the plan, largely because of a lack of a regulatory framework that ensures accountability and clear timelines for delivering on the activities.

A more positive example is Nova Scotia meeting its commitment, which is legislated, to12% protected areas by 2015 in the terrestrial environment. This requires policy, legislation, research, and public engagement to make it happen. We need the federal government to work with the provinces to achieve something similar for our rivers and rainwaters.

In addition to a strong national legislative framework, Canada is signatory to several international conventions and treaties, where we've made commitments to the protection of biodiversity. We've committed to the Aichi targets for 2011-2020, just as we committed to the World Summit on Sustainable Development targets in 2002, which included a network of marine protected areas by 2012 and sustainable fisheries by 2015.

Second, a wide range of tools is necessary. An NCP should ensure that it uses existing processes that work, in addition to new processes to develop and implement an effective plan. In addition to a regulatory framework setting aside terrestrial and marine areas for wilderness protection using market-based approaches where NCP objectives can be met is the importance of a wide range of tools. I work for an organization that's not constrained by how we achieve our change on the ground or how we effect change locally; we move it to a national level. We had the flexibility of using many different tools.

I've already given examples of a market-based approach from Off the Hook, and SeaChoice, Canada's sustainable seafood program, is working with retailers across Canada to change their purchasing and eliminate the selling of unsustainably caught seafood. Market-based approaches do need to be brought into climate change regulation as well.

Our food program is a good example of how to engage people and achieve tangible results. We held the first working farm easements in Nova Scotia, building the market for local food through working with farmers, food sellers, and restaurants. These types of programs provide meaningful engagement and skills development. They have multiple benefits, including increasing water infiltration rates, reducing stormwater runoff, and creating urban wildlife habitat. Another small example is we developed a model for a two-parking-spot greenhouse as a way to use public space in a different way. Our program for active and safe routes to school engages thousands of children in over a hundred schools in getting children outside and active, to and from school. These are all examples of how to promote lifelong appreciation of the outdoors, environmental conservation, and engagement in the community.

Third, collaboration is absolutely necessary. Everybody's facing resource constraints. There's an increasing polarization of the conservation community and economic development at a time when the green economy is the focus of next month's global environmental conference, Rio+20. There are collaborative solutions.

I spent the last six years sitting on a national committee with DFO regarding fish habitat. We came up with excellent recommendations on how to better protect fish habitat. Through the input of over a hundred ENGOs, CNGOs, and engagement with industry, common solutions were identified. I also sit on the species at risk advisory committee, where NGOs and industry advise on how to best protect Canada's habitat and species. We also liaise with NACOSAR. Making sure that we do not have polarization is extremely important. While there is not always consensus, we are able to find common ground. Again, an NCP should facilitate collaboration, and not contribute to polarization, which inevitably decreases the involvement of civil society and industry alike.

Environmental objectives cannot be met without economic development goals that recognize the value of the cost of the natural environment. We know from experience, through the Colin Stewart Forest Forum, our Nova Scotia boreal forest agreement, and our work with farmers and the fishing industry that collaboration on conservation leads to real change on the land and water. You saw on the field trip yesterday just how many jobs depend on clean water and environment, and that those who depend on the environment are willing to help protect it.

Finally, there is a need for monitoring and data collection to protect Canada's wildlife, to better inform the public, as well as for government decision-making. Monitoring and primary research are extremely important. My background is a natural scientist. I can't tell you how much we don't know about things, but also how little we use the information we do have. Examples such as the Discovery Corridor in the Gulf of Maine, which was started as part of the census of marine life, show that we still have much to learn about the species that live in our waters. Research on climate change impacts to wildlife and habitats is critical to being able to put in place meaningful and effective management measures. Monitoring and data collection is extremely important in being able to inform regulators and meet targets and timelines that should be built into the NCP. We need to plan for things that cannot be predicted, such as extreme weather events, changes in precipitation patterns, and synergistic and cumulative impacts that negatively affect the natural environment. Understanding and quantifying the role of the natural capital inherent in our ecosystems should be part of the recalibration of economic development.

Finally, we understand the need to focus on specific objectives and outcomes of an NCP. However, we feel strongly that the basic principles I outlined must be key components of a plan. In summary, we need a strong regulatory framework. We need to identify the appropriate tool for the desired outcomes. We need to facilitate collaboration and promote research and monitoring that spans economic and environmental questions. We are investing in our future, and we cannot underestimate the cost of habitat and species loss. These costs need to start being part of the cost of doing business.

Canada's natural heritage, which includes the invaluable habitat provided by three oceans, thousands of rivers, tributaries, and kilometres of coastline, must benefit from any national conservation plan. We need to protect places and processes. We can't take the environment for granted, and working with rather than against our national heritage will help put Canada back on track as a global leader in conservation. We need to protect what we have, including long-standing environmental protection through existing legislation.

This year's Rio+20 meeting will focus on a green economy. I'd like to leave with the question, how would Canada like to present itself at Rio+20, and what will we say about a national conservation plan?

2 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you very much.

Finally, we will hear from the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. You have ten minutes.

May 29th, 2012 / 2 p.m.

Andrew Hammermeister Assistant Professor, Nova Scotia Agricultural College; Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Thank you very much. That leaves me as the last witness of the last hearing, I understand.

It certainly is a privilege to be here, especially with colleagues who I don't think I've met before but who have very common interests in protecting the environment. It's certainly a privilege to speak with you as well today. So welcome to Halifax.

In a past life I was the manager of the Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan, so conservation is very close to my heart as well. But I come to you today as the director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, which was established in 2001. It's the only centre of its kind in Canada dedicated to supporting research, extension, and professional education in organic agriculture. We're located at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, soon to be a part of Dalhousie University.

One of our main projects right now is we're managing an $8-million national organic research program, supporting over 50 scientists across the country at 35 different research stations and collaborator sites.

Organic agriculture is the most rapidly growing sector in agriculture. In terms of land acreage, Saskatchewan would be the leader. In terms of policy development and number of farmers, Quebec would be, in terms of numbers of farmers, equal to or close to that of Saskatchewan. And Quebec is definitely a leader in terms of policy in terms of organic agriculture.

I've been invited to provide recommendations regarding the development of a national conservation plan, and I place my comments in the context of agriculture and agricultural lands. Today I will discuss how organic agriculture is a defined model for a sustainable production system, with conservation of biodiversity and resources at the core of its guiding principles.

The past agricultural development model was productive but environmentally flawed. The general model was basically to continuously innovate, reduce farm gate prices, and externalize costs. This model drove the phenomenal achievements in productivity in industrial countries after World War II. However, the emphasis on increasing productivity was achieved largely through increased use of inputs, crop and livestock breeding for high-input conditions, reduced crop diversity, increasing the scale of farms and machinery, and the concentration of livestock production.

These practices have resulted in many issues in agriculture that were largely overlooked until a crisis hit, such as high levels of nitrates in groundwater; algal blooms and eutrophication of freshwater supplies; loss of biological diversity, including habitat; declining populations of pollinators; fish kills from soil erosion causing sedimentation of rivers and possibly pesticide or nitrate loading—the list could go on.

While economically driven agriculture has had its problems, there is recognition in the entire agricultural community that conservation of our land and water resources is critically important. This has led to a number of different production systems and industry- or government-led initiatives that support the principles of conservation. And organic agriculture is an example of one of the approaches to dealing with these issues.

What is conservation agriculture? “Conservation agriculture” is defined by Dumanski and his colleagues as

...not “business as usual”, based on maximizing yields while exploiting the soil and agro-ecosystem resources. Rather, conservation agriculture is based on optimizing yields and profits, to achieve a balance of agricultural, economic and environmental benefits.

So it's a balance of those three.

It advocates that the combined social and economic benefits gained from combining production and protecting the environment...are greater than those from production alone.

So the benefits of combining these characteristics are better than production alone.

With conservation agriculture, farming communities become providers of more healthy living environments for the wider community through reduced use of fossil fuels, pesticides, and other pollutants, and through conservation of environmental integrity and services.

So organic agriculture is a form of conservation agriculture, with guiding principles that directly support environmental sustainability.

Organic agriculture is a regulated and inspected production system driven by consumer demand both domestically and internationally. We're talking about the model of sustainable development here.

As described in the regulated Canadian standards, which are generally consistent with other standards around the world, there are seven guiding principles of organic agriculture, five of which directly relate to the environment. These five can be summarized as protecting the environment by minimizing degradation and pollution; maintaining the long-term fertility of the soil; maintaining biological diversity; recycling materials and resources; and relying on renewable resources.

Guided by these principles, the standards of organic agriculture as a precautionary approach prohibit the use of a number of substances and practices in favour of practices that more closely relate to the functioning of a natural ecosystem. These practices are being used around the world.

So here we have a prescriptive, regulated, internationally recognized system of production with conservation and sustainable development at the core of its principles. This is an example of a system that may contradict other approaches in agriculture but that offers a defined model of addressing agri-environmental issues. The system, albeit not perfect, does work. Numerous scientific papers have identified significant environmental benefits associated with organic agriculture.

My colleague Dr. Derek Lynch, also at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, who holds a Canada Research Chair on organic agriculture, recently wrote a review paper with colleagues. In that paper he reported that the consensus of data available to date indicates that the distinctiveness of practices in organic farming confers important environmental and ecological benefits. These include maintenance of soil organic matter and added return of carbon to the soil to improve health; reduced off-farm nitrogen and phosphorous losses; enhanced vegetative and wildlife biological diversity, extended sometimes to other taxa, depending upon the landscape; improved support for pollinators and pollination; and reduced energy use and improved energy efficiency.

A number of European countries have adopted policies that either directly support organic agriculture or support the production practices that define it. In consideration of these benefits, FiBL, the largest organic research institution in the world, headquartered in Switzerland, has more than 200 scientists employed by it working on organic and low-input production systems, both in Europe and around the world.

In organic agriculture, regulated standards have been developed that lead to reducing the environmental impacts and increasing efficiency in the utilization of resources, the results of which are certified organic products that have entered the marketplace both domestically and internationally at a premium price. We see a market-driven demand for a production system that is driven by environmental principles.

How do we design a national conservation program in relation to agriculture? We could isolate proven best management practices and provide support for those individual practices. However, the stability of an ecosystem is not a result of the functioning of a single part of it; it is a result of a complete and integrated system working together. Taking a reductionist approach and supporting a few individual practices is not the solution. Rather, complete farming systems guided by conservation, sustainability, and biodiversity enhancement are needed.

In terms of measuring success, there are many different services that an agri-ecosystem could provide, including augmenting food security; offering a source of economic livelihood; fostering habitat for plants, animals, and insects; protecting our water supply; and providing aesthetic and recreational value for the landscape. This is what we see much more in Europe, where they actually provide incentives to farmers to farm the land in a conservation-minded fashion, so that they provide recreational opportunities for their population.

As with many programs, there must be measures of success included to ensure that the desired outcomes are being achieved. These indicators must reflect our desire to protect natural resources, while still promoting development and utilization of the resources, and maintaining or improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

The components of a national conservation program should include clearly defined goals; mechanisms for stakeholders to develop a common vision; education in schools, universities, and among stakeholders; promotion of this vision to all Canadians; a blend of incentive programs that range from broad-scale impact on the structure and function of the ecosystem to those that also address crisis issues; and incentive programs that reach along the entire value chain, so if you want to affect the producers in the way they farm, you have to also consider the processors and retailers as well, and address issues that might trickle down the value chain.

We need to support programs that support conservation initiatives that are already under way and provide for integration of initiatives that support a vision of conservation. Research that supports development of practices that promote conservation and measure success from a holistic perspective are also needed.

I'll wrap up with my conclusion here.

The organic sector is very interested in participating in this process for a national conservation plan. It is essential that the agricultural community takes responsibility for its impact on the environment and preferably adopts sustainable practices without regulation. However, at the same time we must recognize that the farmers are in business, providing services to society, not the least of which is food security, and hence they should be compensated by society.

In choosing organic agriculture, farmers are choosing to place the responsibility upon themselves to farm in a manner that minimizes environmental impact. They are compensated for this by consumer willingness to pay a premium price for food.

Organic agriculture is an established and viable production system, with conservation and sustainable development at its core. It is a market-driven system of production that blends the goals of conservation, social well-being, and consideration for other living beings, and both environmental and economic sustainability. A model such as organic agriculture can be a perfect example of combining the vision of producers, processors, retailers, consumers, and the government in achieving conservation goals.

Thank you very much.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you.

I'd like to introduce you to the members of the panel who will be asking you questions now.

The standing committee is made up of 12 members. Six are travelling with us today, along with the support staff. Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Lunney are with the government, as am I; Monsieur Choquette and Madam Liu are with the official opposition, members of the NDP party; and Mr. Eyking is our Liberal member.

The first round of questioning will be seven minutes, followed by five-minute questions.

We will begin our seven-minute round with Mr. Lunney.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all our witnesses for being with us for this important final meeting of this particular session.

I want to start with Mr. Hammermeister and organic farming.

You started your presentation, and regrettably we didn't have copies. I guess because we didn't have it in French and English it wasn't distributed. And boy, some of you talk fast. We were making notes.

You made a remark about some $8 million in a research project that’s under way, with some 50 scientists and some 35 sites. Could you expand on that, and tell us what this project is all about and what you're hoping to accomplish?

2:15 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Nova Scotia Agricultural College; Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Andrew Hammermeister

That's part of the science cluster initiative under the Growing Forward policy framework at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. We are managing the organic science cluster, which is one of ten clusters in agriculture across the country. We have 30 different research activities these researchers are working on across the country.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Can you give us an example of one aspect being worked on here in Nova Scotia?

2:15 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Nova Scotia Agricultural College; Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Andrew Hammermeister

Here in Nova Scotia, Dr. Lynch is working on the environmental impact of cropping systems. He is looking at different organic management systems to see the extent of the leaching of nutrients under different organic management practices. It is about trying to protect groundwater supplies and about the efficiency of nutrient management.

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Thank you for that.

Now, critics would state that organic farming is not capable of producing sufficient yields to meet people's needs today. You made a statement about three different aspects. It went by a little too fast for me to get them all down. I wonder if you would simply restate the combination of impacts of organic farming that you feel outweigh the benefits of production alone.

And could you talk about some of the successes in the program? Are you making progress in terms of production capability? Is it possible, for example, for farmers to enhance some of the wetlands we have lost; to take sensitive areas in which marshlands have been drained for production and through environmentally friendly practices actually increase production while enhancing the environment? Is it possible to achieve those objectives?

2:15 p.m.

Assistant Professor, Nova Scotia Agricultural College; Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Andrew Hammermeister

There are lots of different questions there.

The question whether organic agriculture can sustain yields is a very interesting one, and it's very much broader. If we're talking about feeding the world's population, the issue of food supply goes much farther than just yield, involving distribution and management and dealing with quality and storage and so on. There's a lot of discussion we could have around that.

Organic agriculture and the research in organic agriculture are relatively new. Yes, we definitely are making progress. We're developing new crop cultivars that are adapted to low-input conditions. Those are starting to become available in the next two years. It takes about ten years to develop each new cultivar, so this takes time.

In terms of the other benefits of organic farming practices, we definitely see more biodiversity on organic farms. We definitely see reduced nitrogen leaching losses from organic farms and lower nitrogen emissions. Organic farms don't use nitrogen fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizers in themselves account for about 40% of the energy costs and hence of carbon dioxide emissions coming from agriculture.

That in itself is a huge contribution to the environment. The trade-off is that if we want to build the soil, have healthy soil, and capture the nitrogen out of the atmosphere using leguminous plants, we have to build those into our crop rotation, and it takes a year out of production to do it. But when we look at all the external costs associated with conventional agriculture and the impacts we've had, if we were to take those costs and invest them in the system, then I think there would be opportunities for tremendous improvement in the benefits organic production confers.

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

There has been a lot of talk about eating a hundred miles from home. It's very popular to talk about that in British Columbia. Some of our management practices in processing food and aspects of food safety management make it pretty hard for small producers, in many cases, to accomplish those objectives.

I'll just ask whether you have a comment on that, or whether it's an issue, from where you stand.