Environment Committee on April 16th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call the 68th meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order.

Our first part of the meeting today will consist of testimony from Wildlife Habitat Canada, with Mr. Len Ugarenko; from Nature Canada, with Stephen Hazell and Ian Davidson, who has not yet arrived but will be here shortly; and from the David Suzuki Foundation, with Mr. Bill Wareham by video conference from Vancouver.

We're going to begin with the presentations by our witnesses, and then we'll come back to our questioning, with each member around the table having a chance to ask questions.

We're going to begin with Wildlife Habitat Canada and Mr. Len Ugarenko. I understand that Mr. Ugarenko also has his executive assistant, Julia Thompson, with him today. Welcome, Julia.

Mr. Ugarenko, please proceed, and thank you for having your presentation prepared in print.

[Len Ugarenko, President, Wildlife Habitat Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for giving Wildlife Habitat Canada the opportunity to present some ideas for your study on habitat conservation. The details of who we are and what we do are in the speaking notes, so I'll just summarize.

We were created in 1984 by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments and conservation organizations when it was recognized that waterfowl populations across North America were plummeting. The bulk of our funding is derived from the sale of the Canadian wildlife habitat conservation stamp, which is purchased primarily by hunters to validate their migratory bird hunting permits. Through a contribution agreement with Environment Canada, we get the funds from the sale of the stamp, which we administer on conservation projects across Canada.

The first question you asked us was what types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation and how much this accounts for total efforts in Canada. “Stakeholder” is an interesting term. In this context it lends itself to defining those who are actually involved in doing the work necessary to conserve wildlife habitat. Stakeholders can range from groups of schoolchildren cleaning up a stream bank, to community groups working locally in their neighbourhoods, to provincial organizations such as the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation and the Alberta Conservation Association, through to national conservation organizations such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and, of course, Wildlife Habitat Canada.

It's important to go beyond the stakeholders we know to involve all of society. While it may sound trite, simply stated, each person has to understand that if they breathe air, drink water, and consume agricultural and natural resource products, then they are a stakeholder.

It should also be recognized that the original stakeholders who founded the conservation movement in North America and paid for the bulk of habitat conservation were the anglers and hunters. They continue to provide funds through licence and permit fees and voluntary contributions of both time and money to conservation projects and fundraising events.

It's difficult to accurately quantify the conservation work done by the range of stakeholders because so much of it is unreported. For larger groups, one can get a sense of their efforts and accomplishments by reviewing their annual reports and publications, while local efforts may be documented only in community newspapers, if at all. In the past, Wildlife Habitat Canada produced reports on the status of wildlife habitat in Canada that were used by various organizations to assist with their conservation planning.

The second question was on whether Canada has publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation, what the sources of this information are, and how it is disseminated. Canada has a large amount of information—read knowledge and expertise—on habitat conservation. One only need ask and look. There are a number of very good sources available, such as the websites and publications of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and the regional and national non-government conservation organizations. And many of the NGOs provide periodic updates on the work they're doing in the form of electronic newsletters. The key is that one needs to know where to look and what questions to ask. It would be helpful if there was a wider distribution of this information, perhaps through the press, especially to new Canadians.

The third question was on what the most effective habitat conservation groups or organizations are and what actions they take. All groups can be very effective. It depends on the level, scope, and geographic extent of the project undertaken and how “effective” is defined. Some define it by most acres conserved, others by return on dollars invested in habitat conservation, and others the number of people who are participating. We use all of those criteria and more.

The local cleanup projects see immediate results. They're hands-on actions. Larger groups produce multi-year plans at the regional level, such as the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, which covers Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, or at the national level, such as the North American waterfowl management plan. These plans often include acquiring critical habitats in perpetuity through outright purchase or long-term easements, and physically modifying sites to restore vegetation, hydrology, and other ecological functions, to name a few. Other habitat conservation actions include education and demonstration projects.

Groups often use the press, Internet, and social media as community outreach tools to promote habitat work and project results while recruiting volunteers.

As to who the most effective habitat conservation organizations are, this is often expressed in terms of those groups that are able to minimize overhead while delivering on-the-ground habitat conservation projects. Some have already been named in my remarks regarding the first question.

The fourth question was how “conserved land” is defined and accounted for in Canada, and whether that definition is different from that in other countries. Within Canada there are differences of opinion regarding the definition of conserved land and how it is accounted for and reported in various databases. At Wildlife Habitat Canada, for example, we try to use a broad definition to help our conservation partners with the work they do. Habitat conservation can mean or include the acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Having worked all across Canada as well as in the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean, I have seen that all countries use similar definitions for habitat conservation.

The point is not how habitat conservation is defined yet rather how it's achieved. At the heart of the matter is that there are a lot of good people doing a lot of good work trying to achieve habitat—and thus wildlife—conservation, no matter how it's defined.

Do we need to have a universal definition of conserved land in Canada? How much time will this take, and in the end what purpose will it really serve? I think the time has come to implement the actions we know are needed before it's too late.

The fifth question was, when it comes to recovering a species, how best management practices and stewardship initiatives compare to prescriptive government-mandated measures. Best management practices such as farm plans, biodiversity plans, and the like can be very effective on their own as long as there is a public that is willing to initiate those actions on a voluntary or subsidized basis.

While at times prescriptive measures must be part of the planning tool box, because the general public, most of whom have lost their connection with nature, often do not understand what is happening in the natural world around them, government-mandated measures, including legislation, can be very effective in guiding land use to direct conservation efforts in order to help declining species. But on a cautionary note, one has to be careful how it's done. Government programs can often be very bureaucratic and frustrating, with more money being spent on managing the bureaucratic process than actually going into on-the-ground habitat-conservation work.

The sixth and final question was on how the federal government can improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada. Simply stated, it's by completing a national conservation plan as soon as possible. In the meantime, there could be more effort directed toward public education and active involvement in habitat conservation. For example, more could be done on connecting youth with nature by promoting the immediate and long-term benefits, especially in the areas of health and education. As well, we need to develop ways of involving new Canadians in wildlife habitat conservation and educating them about the importance of being active participants.

There are tax incentives that provide some financial relief, yet perhaps more is necessary in this area when one considers the actual cash value of ecological goods and services.

We need to work on fostering a cultural shift in society that began with the advent of the blue box. The Ontario government provides an example of how this could be done. They recently published their plan to conserve biodiversity by establishing actions and activities within individual government ministries. Hopefully over time, people will take home what they are doing at work and the message will spread.

On a final note, we purposely left out the studies and statistics regarding rates of habitat loss and degradation. The fact that we are here today underscores that point, and I'm sure others will likely cover those details. In moving forward it is important that habitat conservation actions taken in the future be economically viable. Canada must move forward to improve habitat conservation but also remain cognizant of the natural resources industries upon which our society relies.

We face a future of uncertainty. As alternate sources of energy are developed, there will be new challenges on the landscape related to land use and habitat conservation. Climate change and species adaptation will likely cause shifts in the way we approach habitat planning in the future. Maintaining a healthy balance between habitat conservation and economic development will be difficult, yet we believe it can be achieved.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Ugarenko, you're about three seconds short of your 10 minutes. Thank you so much for honouring that.

We're going to move now to Mr. Bill Wareham in British Columbia and ask him to give us his 10-minute opening comments.

Mr. Wareham, welcome and thank you for getting up early. We know it's much earlier there than it is here.

[Bill Wareham, Science Project Manager, David Suzuki Foundation]

No problem, I appreciate the opportunity. I live in Gibsons, British Columbia, and I'm used to commuting to Vancouver at six in the morning anyway. So it's a normal day here, but nice to see you all.

I also provided a written document for you, which outlines some of the background of our organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Wareham, just for clarification, because it wasn't translated, we haven't circulated that document, but we will be listening intently to your comments.

[Bill Wareham]

Great.

Overall, I'd just like to highlight that the David Suzuki Foundation has a strong interest in habitat conservation. Our mandate is to try to realize a balance between running a dependable economy and maintaining a core infrastructure of habitat, diversity, and ecosystem function.

Just so that you know a little bit about me, I have worked for about 27 years in the conservation field. I've worked with freshwater fisheries out of Winnipeg. I've worked with Ducks Unlimited and with the World Wildlife Fund on the endangered species program. I've worked with Sierra Club for many years, and I've been about 11 years now at the Suzuki Foundation, working on terrestrial conservation and on freshwater and marine conservation of fisheries.

I'll cut to the questions directly. The first one is about looking at what types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation. There are many people involved. I'd put them in two different categories. There are those who work on the ground and are involved in Streamkeepers; or in habitat conservation of local, natural areas; or in Friends of Parks, who help manage parks for wildlife conservation. Then there are the other groups that work on policy, legislation, and amending and reforming regulations at a broader scale. They look at habitat issues for large industries and across larger landscapes. It's really important that both of these stakeholder groups be recognized as part of what is needed to engage habitat conservation at a higher level. I believe we can do more by including the many people who care deeply about habitat conservation and work through industry, NGOs, community groups, and within government. The magic lies in trying to combine all of that energy into a process where stakeholders have the knowledge of what can and should be done as well as the logical and economical priorities necessary for moving forward with habitat conservation.

On the second question about the availability of knowledge and expertise in habitat conservation, when you look across the databases within provincial and federal governments, there's a lot of knowledge out there. There's a lot information. Unfortunately, a lot of the information we had in the past is sometimes lost with the evolution of websites. The history of trends and conservation initiatives is also sometimes lost. I believe we could do better at trying to integrate and provide a more common repository for habitat conservation. Some of it is regionally focused. Some of it is focused on species, according to endangered and threatened species management and conservation plans. Overall, if you're really for habitat information, you have to dig deep into the various organizations. Sometimes that includes individual groups, municipal governments, and a variety of federal agencies that hold the information you need.

In regard to the most effective habitat conservation groups and organizations, there are so many groups out there that work at a range of scales and on different types of habitats that the measure of effectiveness is difficult, unless you confine yourself to talking to the groups about whether or not they're meeting their own objectives. On a large scale, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited do fantastic work on trying to protect private lands and working with landowners to protect habitat. Despite all the on-the-ground efforts of these organizations, we continue to see a loss of habitat, both on private land and on crown land. An example I'll use is in the context of farmland, where the increasing value of farmland drives farmers to try to maximize their yields. They'll often develop the last remaining natural habitats, whether it's wetlands, hedge rows, or remnant pieces of bush on their lands. Those are often the last refugia for wildlife that remain on the landscape. We're seeing an ongoing decline in that type of habitat, particularly in areas near urban centres.

In that context, many of the other organizations that work on improving environmental policies at all levels of government—those that work on new legislation or regulations associated with legislation—are very important because it's sometimes the overarching limits and boundaries set by these regulations that are the only feasible way to protect habitat at a larger scale.

Overall, I look at the large indicators and trends in wildlife, and here, when we look at our commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, we're failing to meet those targets—and to me, that's the measure. Regardless of all the effort and goodwill, we're still losing the battle or we're not living up to our commitments.

You could say that conservation organizations have not been very effective, but I believe it's truly a reflection of the failure of governments to move on habitat conservation agendas in a timely and effective way. I believe much more investment is needed to really focus that effort.

As for the next question, how conserved land is defined and accounted for in Canada, it's defined through provincial and federal agencies, and associated maps and data are housed in all of the different places. The Canadian Council on Ecological Areas tracks large-scale protected areas. We have national parks, national wildlife areas, provincial parks, conservancies, and ecological reserves. These large habitat conservation areas are quite easy to identify and define. The smaller-scale protection is more difficult and it takes a lot more digging to piece together any kind of data on the scale of protection involved there.

One complicating factor in accounting for habitat protection is the diversity of designations and permitted uses within these. Across the many provinces, with all the different types of parks and conservancies, there is a variety of uses permitted within these and different scales of habitat conservation within them. We refer you to the IUCN, which provides a useful scale of protection classifications and defines the degree to which certain designations of habitat are actually protected within different areas.

When it comes to recovering species, how do we best manage stewardship initiatives compared to prescriptive government mandates? I say we clearly need both. Best management practices alone should be a baseline for commercial and industrial activity. But best practices are often not enough. For example, logging companies employed best management practices in the boreal forest area in regard to caribou habitat over the past decade, but the caribou continued to decline. It requires a federal government effort to develop the recovery strategies to determine the disturbance threshold for caribou and to really put a tighter requirement on habitat conservation.

Even though we have science behind us, industry does not always do the right thing: it has other interests to satisfy, obviously. As we develop large-scale activities, whether it's boreal forest or oil or agricultural development, we see the need for a tighter regulatory framework on habitat conservation.

In the case of private land conservation, best management practices are often not economical for landowners. In these cases, it's not only restrictive regulations that can help realize conservation of habitat but also improved financial and tax benefits that will incentivize conservation. These are needed, again, at a broader scale to really do the job for habitat conservation that most Canadians are expecting.

The last one is, how does the federal government improve habitat conservation efforts? I'll just go through a quick list here. How many minutes do we have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 30 seconds.

[Bill Wareham]

I'll just do a quick run through the recommendations.

The first is to engage the full range of conservation NGOs and public stakeholders, which includes on-the-ground work, and policy and regulatory work.

The second is to commit to the biodiversity convention targets and develop strategies toward those based on the agreement reached at Nagoya, Japan.

The third is to enhance funding to accommodate habitat protection using the various acts we have.

The fourth is to engage first nations, municipal, and provincial governments in more strategic planning around habitat protection priorities.

The fifth is to provide incentives that are financial to landowners and to governments to put the effort on the priority habitat conservation areas.

The sixth is to provide economic incentives, particularly for species-at-risk recovery planning, and to provide funding to non-government organizations that will enable them to use their volunteer capacity to add to the effort toward habitat conservation.

Lastly is the need to acknowledge that protecting nature from harm isn't a matter, in the first place, of doing the conservation work in the wake of development but of pursuing habitat conservation that maintains the conservation and integrity of the environment at the front end.

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thanks, Mr. Wareham. Thank you again for providing your comments in written form. We will make certain that all the committee members receive them after they have been translated, so the shortened time span won't negatively impact your written statement. Thank you very much.

We will now move to Nature Canada, from which we have Mr. Ian Davidson, the executive director.

Welcome, Mr. Davidson.

[Ian Davidson, Executive Director, Nature Canada]

Thank you very much.

My apologies to the people here. I had a small issue with my child. She's in the hospital with a high temperature. She's fine, and I'll go forward with my presentation.

First of all, by way of introduction, my name is Ian Davidson. I am the executive director for Nature Canada. I have been working in the field of conservation for most of my life, I think since the age of 17. I've worked with the Canadian government, with the Canadian Wildlife Service, for a not-for-profit organization. I have spent a lot of my life working overseas in conservation arenas, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a privilege and an honour to be once again invited to speak about the national conservation plan being considered by the standing committee.

Nature Canada has been connecting Canadians to nature since 1939. It is the largest grassroots-based conservation organization in Canada, representing some 46,000 members and supporters, as well as our network of 375 provincial and local nature organizations across Canada.

Today I wish to focus on key habitat conservation principles and objectives that Nature Canada believes should be incorporated into the national conservation strategy. I also wish to touch on the roles of government and not-for-profit organizations in improving habitat conservation and in reconnecting Canadians to nature.

First, here is some context. The 1980 world conservation strategy defined conservation as “the management of human use of the biosphere” in such a way “that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”.

This is as good a definition of conservation as I have found. Yet even in 1980 and increasingly since, human actions are reducing the life-supporting capacity of earth's ecosystems, even as rising human populations and consumption are making heavier demands on those ecosystems. In simple terms, we need about 1.5 earths to support current human populations at current consumption levels. Nature's bank is currently overdrawn, and the deficit is increasing.

Nature Canada suggests two key public policy principles that should flow from these inconvenient truths: first, that there must be no further net loss in wildlife habitat in Canada; second, that nature conservation must come first in natural resources development and decision making.

With respect to the first principle, a 1986 DFO policy established a long-term objective of a net gain in productive capacity of Canada's fish habitats. Proposed development projects were to be reviewed by DFO under the Fisheries Act to ensure no net loss. No net loss means that such projects are not to damage fish habitat or, if habitat loss is unavoidable, that habitat be created elsewhere to compensate.

Other wildlife species deserve just as much no net loss in productive habitat capacity as fish do. This should be a key principle underlying federal policy and law governing habitat conservation.

The second principle is called “conservation first”—it's a phrase that was coined by the former WWF Canada President Monte Hummel—which states that robust networks of protected areas need to “be established as anchor areas of high conservation value” before major resource development decisions are made, so that the resilience of ecosystems to stresses and uncertainties such as global climate change can be maximized.

Implementation of these principles demands good ecological science capacity within the federal government.

Canada has made significant commitments to conserving habitat, such as through the Conventions on Biological Diversity, on the Conservation of Migratory Species, and on Wetlands—the Ramsar convention—and through laws such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Canada Wildlife Act, as well as in policies such as the DFO's no net loss policy.

Two recent commitments are of particular interest. First, in 2010 Canada agreed to the so-called Aichi targets to conserve, through protected areas, at least 17% of Canada's terrestrial inland waters and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. The Aichi targets are included under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 developed pursuant to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

According to the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, in 2013—as of this past February—the federal, provincial, and territorial governments now protect about 10% of Canada's land area and only about 0.88% of its marine territory. So there is a long way to go to achieve the 17% and 10% targets respectively.

The federal government is also responsible for managing other lands of vital conservation importance, most notably some 2.2 million acres of community pastures in prairie Canada. Through the visionary action taken by key agricultural leaders more than 75 years ago, public resources were applied to restore degraded grasslands to a state that yielded economic production and environmental benefits year after year.

The PFRA community pastures provide one of the best examples of a triple bottom-line enterprise in Canada. The 80 community pastures in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba comprise over 9,000 square kilometres, some of the largest unfragmented tracks of native grasslands found anywhere in North America. Not only do they contain critical habitat for numerous species at risk, such as the almost extinct iconic sage grass, but at the same time they also provide pasture for hundreds of thousands of head of cattle annually.

The recent announcement by the federal government to transfer the community pastures out of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration presents a unique challenge and opportunity to ensure that the best management practices developed through the PFRA continue to serve pasture patrons and protect one of our most imperilled habitats. The successful devolution of these native grasslands to the patrons and\or first nation interest for management purposes demonstrates a new and innovative way to manage for wildlife on the productive landscape.

The point is that the federal government has historically played a crucial role in conserving habitat by establishing national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, national marine protected areas, and other management areas. Completion of these systems of protected areas by the federal government will be critical to achieving Canada's international commitments.

Non-profit groups such as my own, Nature Canada, can play important roles such as through public-private partnerships, but only the federal government and the provincial governments can achieve the big wins, such as expanding Nahanni National Park Reserve; creating new and important protected areas, such as the proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area; and ensuring the viability of some of the largest swaths of native grasslands to protect biodiversity.

Nature Canada has itself played an important role in habitat conservation. In 1996 we became the co-partner with Bird Studies Canada of the globally recognized important bird areas program. With BirdLife international partners in over a hundred countries, we're monitoring a worldwide network for the most important sites for birds and biodiversity on the planet.

We have identified nearly 600 IBAs across Canada's diverse landscapes, which represent nearly 3% of Canada's land area. Acting with regional conservation partners, we built an exhaustive important bird areas database, finalized almost a hundred site conservation plans, helped communities implement more than 150 local projects, and initiated a network of thousands of volunteers who conserve important bird areas.

In addition to conserving habitat by establishing protected areas, Nature Canada firmly believes that the national conservation plan could play a crucial role in reconnecting Canadians to nature. The 2011 Ipsos poll found that 80% of Canadians say they feel happy when connected to nature, and 85% worry that natural areas we enjoy today won't be there for their children or grandchildren. There's also abundant evidence that young people are increasingly disconnected from nature and habitat, and the term nature deficit disorder has been coined to describe this disconnection and its affliction.

The bottom line is that few people are aware of and/or engaged in nature. Once considered a core Canadian value, Canada's identity as a nature nation is at risk. Thus, Nature Canada believes an important objective of the national conservation plan should be to rebuild the nature nation by inspiring and motivating Canadians to put habitat back in nature.

In conclusion, Nature Canada makes a number of recommendations to this panel. The first is to include the principles of no net loss and conservation first as key habitat conservation principles.

Second is to continue efforts to complete Canada's system of national wildlife areas and national parks, and to provide sufficient funding and scientific research capacity to the Canadian Wildlife Service and Parks Canada to achieve these objectives.

Third is to accord greater habitat protection to important bird areas in Canada in support of on-the-ground partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, nature groups, first nation aboriginal communities, the private sector, and others.

Fourth is to focus on Canada's most threatened ecosystems, with special attention to our native grasslands, which provide habitat for a multitude of resident and shared species.

Under the national conservation plan and out of recognition for the foundational roles that grasslands have played in shaping Canada, the devolution of key native grasslands to the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba needs to be delayed until patrons and first nation groups can develop sustainable strategies to manage and conserve these large tracts of Canada's most valuable native grasslands.

Fifth is to provide adequate funding to our federal government agencies, including the Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada, and DFO to clear up the backlog in the development of recovery strategies for species at risk, and to protect critical habitat for species at risk identified in recovery strategies.

Finally, we need to support programming to reconnect Canadians to nature, programming that recognizes nature as a core value; focuses on engaging Canadians where they are, namely in large urban areas; bridges the new Canadian divide; and works through partnerships and leverages the experiences and resources of the many diverse stakeholder groups across this land with the aim of re-establishing Canada as a nature nation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Davidson, and we welcome Mr. Hazell who's joined you as your conservation adviser.

Now we'll move to five rounds of seven-minute questions, and we'll begin with the government side.

Mr. Sopuck, you may go first.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much, and good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davidson, the term “habitat” is an important one. As an owner of habitat on my own farm, I feel that habitat is a very dynamic concept. Habitat changes all the time, doesn't it? The implication is that by locking up a piece of land and leaving it alone, certain positive outcomes will happen. Would you agree that sound management of habitat is important in most cases to achieve environmental objectives?

[Ian Davidson]

I would agree that's part of the solution. Obviously, in the way we see the world there are many different ways that habitat can be conserved. I think I spoke a little to the fact that we believe strongly that the Canadian government has a mandate to conserve some of our protected areas, but that's only part of the solution. We believe strongly that a number of stakeholders across the landscape, both stakeholders like ourselves, but also private landowners, industry, and so forth, have an important role to engage in various ways of conserving habitat. We believe that bringing this all together provides a much better vehicle for the conservation of habitat throughout.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Davidson, do you think that habitat can be changed through human activity from one state to another and still retain its conservation values?

[Ian Davidson]

I believe that conservation values would potentially change. For example, I take the case of the northern parts of Alberta where there's considerable development of oil and gas

The issue here is that a lot of the boreal forest in question is potentially being rolled back and there are indications that there is a re-restoration of this land, but we believe that in some cases like this, you can't really bring back habitat as it was before. So the restoration of the boreal forest that was there might not necessarily bring back the same values that were originally there.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Right, but again, if ecosystem function is important, and I'm convinced that it is, we can change land from one state to a second state and still retain ecosystem values.

Just for the record, the amount of boreal forest being affected by the oil sands development in Alberta compared to the amount of boreal forest right across the country is very small.

Again, in terms of the 600 square kilometres that have been affected by oil sands development, I would note that 10% of that has already been rejuvenated to perhaps a different habitat state, but it has been reclaimed, nevertheless.

Mr. Davidson, I was interested in your comments about fisheries and habitat. Again, when one looks at prairie reservoirs, for example, which greatly altered riverine habitats, creating lake habitats from what were river habitats, what happens when that occurs—and it has happened and continues to happen—is that the fish community just booms. So, again, with this notion of moving from one state to a second state, obviously, the creation of dams in prairie Canada has been tremendous for fish, hasn't it?

[Stephen Hazell, Senior Conservation Adviser, Nature Canada]

I wouldn't know. I would say that the no net loss policy is and has been an extremely important principle that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has applied, and the policy does indicate that, yes, if development is going to destroy fish habitat, then by all means let's.... Well, they basically have required until now that habitat be compensated for.

So that was a good idea to put pressure on developers so they can't just wipe out lakes under schedule 2 but have to do something else. That was a useful thing because, overall, as I think a number of the witnesses have said, we're losing habitat and for that reason we need to draw the line.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Wareham, we have had a number of success stories in the conservation field like the bald eagle, the white pelican, the peregrine falcon and, of course, the ubiquitous Canada geese. It is important to highlight the success stories as well isn't it, Mr. Wareham?

[Bill Wareham]

Yes, what we're seeing overall at a global level is that with the land development we are applying to agriculture, forestry, and other things, there is a transition to a different ecological state. Certain species thrive in that change, but the overall diversity is declining. So we might have an abundance of certain species that can thrive in the revised habitat type, but the overall diversity is gone, and in many cases we've lost species or whole suites of species in these areas.

I think we have to be careful not to highlight the abundance of individual species as an overall measure of conservation benefit: we should be looking at the diversity of species and the overall ecosystem function in maintaining that diversity.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Ugarenko, I really appreciated your highlighting the contributions of the anglers and hunters. Again, as I've said many times in this committee, the contributions of anglers and hunters to Canada's conservation work is always underappreciated. These are the folks who step up and open up their wallets up and actually ask to spend their own money on conservation—and your organization is living proof of that.

What would your recommendations to government be, Mr. Ugarenko, regarding how to conserve habitat on the privately owned agricultural landscape?

[Len Ugarenko]

I think there are a number of really good programs that are in effect now. For example, in Manitoba through the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation they sign easement agreements with the agricultural community. They do it in such a way that whether they're raising crops or animals, the economic productivity of the land goes up and they manage to maintain the habitat on their land going door to door. We fund the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation. We do work with Mr. Davidson in Nature Canada on important bird areas; we fund those projects through Nature Canada. We do the same thing with Bird Studies Canada.

However, when you take a look at things like the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, they have what they call their ALUS plan, alternate land use strategy. They basically go in—and I've seen these farms—and work with the farmer to maintain the critical areas of habitat on their property and to manage whatever it is, livestock or crops, in such a way that it's not detrimental to the habitat they're trying to protect.

In Prince Edward Island and other places, Ducks Unlimited Canada has a program that we fund where they develop environmental farm plans. Again, in P.E.I. they're helping the dairy farmers keep the effluent out of the wetlands, to keep the cattle from getting hoof rot stepping into streams and into the wetlands, but at the same time maintaining wetland habitat, which is critical for migratory waterfowl and other birds.

So it can be done. There are enough examples out there on the landscape. It varies from province to province, and from product to product, and the area that people are going to be dealing with. I've worked with the Wildlife Habitat Council in the United States. They have an excellent program. It's creeping into Canada. They work with natural resource companies and waste disposal companies, where they actually develop wildlife plans on their property and rehabilitation plans if they're doing quarrying and they're going to abandon certain pieces of property afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Ugarenko, our time is up.

Mr. Sopuck, thank you.

We're going to move to Madame Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Choquette.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I also want to thank Mr. Wareham for getting up so early this morning.

I'll just wait until all of our witnesses are able to hear the interpretation before I ask my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Madame Quach, we'll start your time now.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of you, to some degree, mentioned tax benefits and adequate funding for government agencies so they can manage habitat protection programs effectively. Would you say that budget cuts, like the elimination of Parks Canada conservation officers, can have an impact on habitat conservation? If so, what can the government do to remedy the problem and to work towards meeting the targets agreed to under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity?

All of you talked about it to some degree. Knowing that climate change is a very present concern that will affect how we adapt, I'd like to know what steps you think the federal government should take?