Environment Committee on April 25th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I call meeting number 71 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order.

We have four witnesses appearing today, all by video conference. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being at their posts and ready and on time for our meeting to start. We will do our best to direct our questions to a specific witness, so we don't waste any time in that regard.

Also, for those of you who have not submitted a written report, it would be helpful if you spoke at a moderate speed, so our interpreters can follow you.

We welcome Arne Mooers, professor of biology at Simon Fraser University; Kim Barrett from Conservation Halton; Doug Chorney, president of Keystone Agricultural Producers; and Mr. Darrell Crabbe from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

We are going to start with Arne Mooers. Professor Mooers, thank you for being up early this morning.

[Dr. Arne Mooers, Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Yes, it is early.

Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee, my name is Arne Mooers, and I am a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University. I am also the chair of the Biodiversity and Conservation Committee at the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution , a learned society with approximately 1,000 members.

I am honoured to appear before you as an individual with a strong professional interest in the sound management of Canada's biodiversity. I've had this honour on one earlier occasion—in 2009, I believe—in the context of a report that we wrote for the six-year review of SARA, the relevant legislation with which I am most familiar.

Most of the questions directing your study of habitat conservation in Canada are not primarily scientific in nature and so I will be of little direct help. In particular, I have absolutely nothing to say regarding questions (a), (c), or (d), so please don't ask me about them.

Given that I am joined by Mr. Doug Chorney of Keystone Agricultural Producers, I thought I would give one recent example of why we are here this morning. I am referring to a paper that was published less than a month ago in one of the two top science journals in the world, Science, by a group of 50 international scientists, including some from Canada. This paper presents very surprising evidence, to me at least, that crop pollination the world over goes better the more species of wild pollinators there are doing the work, and that it is better when wild pollinators are the only pollinators around. Critically, it is better even when honey bee pollinators are brought in to augment the work.

This implies very strongly that the habitat surrounding agricultural lands and the diverse pollinators they support have direct economic benefits to humans on fiscal time scales and that there are no easy substitutes.

I would add that this same issue of the journal has information about the misuse of science and conservation decision-making, something we may want to discuss further, and a letter about the general trajectory of selectively logged forests. The data is piled up day in and day out on these important issues.

With regard to the questions at hand, my thesis is as follows: habitat protection is the sine qua non and absolutely critical to effective biodiversity resource management. However, the effectiveness of such management cannot be measured solely by the extent of habitat protection. What I mean there is that success cannot be measured in the number of acres of forest set aside for selective logging or the number of acres set aside for national parks.

Ideally, biodiversity resource management could be monitored with high-level integrators of what biodiversity does on the landscape, i.e., productivity, instability of the soil, the sequestration of carbon, and the net and stable production of things we like and things we need such as wildlife to enjoy, wildlife to hunt and fish, etc. We could then see how different management regimes would affect these metrics, including those that were based on habitat.

There is theory as to how much habitat one needs to keep intact in order to keep the requisite biodiversity components intact on the landscape and what happens when too much is lost, but this theory is exactly the sort of thing that could be misused by policy-makers. While I myself and many of my colleagues see the theoretical point of an ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity management, we cannot advocate for it at the present time.

A recent major report by Environment Canada, written to meet our obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and called “Canadian Biodiversity Ecosystem Status and Trend 2010”, highlights how poor our knowledge base is at this high level of integration, that of looking at ecosystems. One of its 22 key findings was that the ecosystem research for policy-level assessments was lacking and that this lack hindered the development of the actual report. They say quite a bit more on that. Indeed, data were lacking for things as simple and important to Canada as changes in the extent of coastal habitats and changes to wetlands. This major report could not even offer anything on important aspects of ecosystem function such as pollination. There simply wasn't data there. So we—and when I say we, I mean Canadians, Canada—simply cannot yet measure the status and prospects of ecosystems.

My first recommendation is that the monitoring of ecosystem functions across all landscapes should be a major policy thrust of this and future Canadian governments. As your 2012 report from this committee stated, “Nature is part of Canada's brand”. So we'd better find out what's going on.

However, what we can do now is measure clear indicators of sound biodiversity resource management. These indicators include the current status and trajectory of its constituent species. In the majority of cases on land, habitat deterioration is the main cause of threats to species. In fact, about 80% of species are considered at risk in Canada. I expect other witnesses, perhaps Ms. Barrett from Halton, will make this point eloquently.

If we see there are threatened species on the landscape, then most of the time that means that habitat is threatened. If we can manage the habitat so that species are not at risk of being lost, then we are likely managing that habitat responsibly. It is this connection between the integrity of an ecosystem and the services it renders and the fate of the species that produce this ecosystem that constitutes the main reason that I and a great many of my colleagues support the complete implementation of SARA and complementary endangered species legislation at the provincial and territorial levels.

We—that is, many of my colleagues and I—simply do not see any substitute at this time.

Though it may not be what you want to hear, many of us in the academic conservation community feel that implementing strong endangered species legislation may, in fact, be the best medium-term way that the federal government can improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada presently.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your being very sensitive to our timeframe. We're giving each of you a 10-minute opening round. I neglected to mention that earlier, so I appreciate your giving us a few extra minutes there.

We'll move now to Ms. Barrett.

[Kim Barrett, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton]

Thank you very much.

My name is Kim Barrett, and I've been the senior terrestrial ecologist with Conservation Halton for the past 10 years. Before that I was a species at risk biologist with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Conservation Halton is one of 36 conservation authorities across Ontario. We're community-based local agencies that deliver services and programs that protect and manage natural resources in partnership with government, landowners, and other organizations.

Conservation authorities are unique to Ontario. We promote an integrated watershed approach, balancing human, environmental, and economic needs, and we're organized on a watershed basis.

In response to your specific questions, the first was about what types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation Ultimately the stakeholders involved in habitat conservation are landowners—the individuals, organizations, and corporations that actually own the land. Although their actions may be guided and supported by various intermediaries, it's very difficult to force anyone to improve habitat quality or quantity if they don't want to.

Those intermediaries are fortunately quite diverse and abundant, from the national organizations all the way down to local naturalist clubs and neighbourhood associations.

Conservation authorities across Ontario contribute quite substantially to habitat conservation in a number of ways. First, we collectively own, monitor, and manage about 146,000 hectares of land that provides habitat for many species. Second, we have stewardship programs that provide information and support to landowners and guide them through restoration activities on their properties. Third, we provide outdoor educational programming for almost half a million children each year.

Just a few other examples: many conservation authorities have agreements with our member municipalities to provide technical review planning applications with respect to impacts on natural heritage features and functions. We have staff sitting on species at risk recovery teams and conducting research. Because our mandate spans both aquatic and terrestrial systems, we have a holistic ecosystem-based approach to habitat conservation that few other agencies have.

Although the jurisdiction of conservation authorities covers only about 10% of Ontario's land base, this area contains more than 90% of Ontario's population, so I would contend that our contribution to habitat conservation in this challenging landscape is considerably greater than our geographic reach.

Your next question was related to the availability, sources, and dissemination of publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation. There are many groups with expertise on habitat conservation that have resources available, mainly online. For example, the Ontario Invasive Plant Council has published guidelines for the control of a number of invasive plant species.

Species at risk recovery strategies and recovery action plans, where they exist, provide direction and measures to improve habitat conditions for targeted species.

Many local environmental organizations, like conservation authorities and Carolinian Canada Coalition, offer workshops to local landowners, offering advice on different aspects of habitat conservation.

Much of the information that's directly applied to on-the-ground conservation efforts is spread by word of mouth on the basis of the direct experiences of others. Lifelong naturalists are keen observers and often provide a wealth of information that surpasses any published study in terms of relevance and practical application.

There is a gap between the primary literature and the applied practice of habitat conservation—and the transfer of this information is often delayed. Most conservation organizations don't have the resources required to access the primary literature, and in reality the primary literature may not provide the answers people are seeking. It's very difficult and expensive to conduct research on habitat conservation on a landscape scale and over a timeframe that's ecologically relevant, particularly with respect to long-lived species such as turtles and some birds.

Ecosystem-scale, long-term research such as that formally conducted in the Experimental Lakes Area is an appropriate void for federal scientists to fill.

In my brief I discussed an Environment Canada report entitled, How Much Habitat is Enough? One additional initiative I'd like to briefly mention is the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network, or EMAN, which Environment Canada coordinated from 1994 to 2010. This program played a key role in coordinating environmental monitoring efforts across Canada, and facilitated data sharing through the use of standardized protocols and citizen science monitoring. The loss of funding to this program is unfortunate because it's difficult to make decisions about the effectiveness of habitat conservation without monitoring the results of our efforts.

You asked about the most effective habitat conservation groups and the actions they take. The most effective habitat conservation groups are those with broad-based community support, and those that consult widely with affected parties to leverage support from multiple sources.

As a local example, the Cootes to Escarpment Park System in Hamilton and Burlington is a collaboration among 10 government and non-government organizations whose goal is to protect, restore, and connect more than 2,000 hectares of natural lands at the western end of Lake Ontario. This initiative was formed to coordinate management activities on a number of protected areas owned and managed by different organizations, including Conservation Halton, Hamilton Conservation Authority, Royal Botanical Gardens, and the Bruce Trail Conservancy. The area is a biodiversity hot spot with almost one-quarter of Canada's native flora and 50 species at risk. The eco-park system will provide a coordinated network of habitats for both people and wildlife.

The Hamilton Naturalists' Club, another partner in the Cootes to Escarpment Park System, has been a model for habitat conservation efforts since its inception in 1919. The club became the first volunteer organization in Ontario to purchase significant areas as nature sanctuaries in 1962. It now has five sanctuaries of over 300 acres and the support of over 500 very dedicated members.

Your fourth question is related to the definition of conserved land. Typically, conserved land is synonymous with lands that are owned by a public agency or non-government organization with a mandate for conservation, because private landholdings are subject to alteration. The use of conservation easements can be effective, but it's very dependent on having the right landowner for the right property. Easements don't provide the same flexibility as outright ownership of the property, and this may come into play as the status of various species guilds changes over time.

There was a time not very long ago when meadows and grasslands were considered underperforming areas in need of tree planting to maximize their ecological benefits. However, with the recent decline of grasslands species such as the bobolink and eastern meadowlark and a greater appreciation of the importance of the so-called lesser taxa such as butterflies and dragonflies, the best use of some of our conserved areas has shifted.

In Ontario, the concept of habitat banking seems to be emerging as a practical option to support species-at-risk conservation. This is a market-based system whereby someone proposing to remove habitat buys credits from a bank, which in turn restores habitat elsewhere. Its strength is that it provides certainty to the development community while facilitating opportunities to strengthen and support significant core habitats that have a higher probability of retaining their long-term conservation values.

You asked how best management practices and stewardship compare to prescriptive, government-mandated measures. In my opinion, they work together. Most on-the-ground work is accomplished through local stewardship efforts, but these are often facilitated by government-mandated measures and programs, especially when those programs include financial assistance.

For example, both the federal and provincial governments have funding programs for species at risk that provide much needed support for habitat conservation efforts. Best management practices are good, but they're not usually enough to stop the decline of species at risk that are impacted by habitat factors. You need prescriptive, government-mandated measures to go over and above the status quo and actually recover species at risk. For example, the determination of an overall benefit to the species is an integral part of the permitting process under paragraph 17(2)(c) of the Ontario Endangered Species Act.

There are always loopholes and gaps in environmental legislation that can be circumvented with a good lawyer and a lot of money, but if you have a landowner who's committed to conservation, they will do the right thing regardless of what the law requires of them.

Finally, you asked how the federal government can improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada. My first suggestion is to buy more land and set it aside for conservation. They're not making any more of it, and the elephant in the room is population growth, especially in the greater Toronto area. Habitat loss and degradation is by far the leading cause of the endangerment of species at risk. If you look at a map of the highest concentration of species at risk, it overlaps with the most densely populated area in the country, which probably has the smallest representation of national parks. Conservation of particular species and habitats may or may not be compatible with other uses of the land, and informed zoning with ongoing monitoring of protected areas is critical to ensuring that management objectives are achieved.

My second recommendation is to explore the strategic use of habitat banking to fund restoration projects and provide financial support to local stakeholders who are already actively engaged in habitat protection and restoration. The reality is that habitat conservation, particularly in a landscape characterized by relatively small individual private landholdings has to be done at the local level, one landowner at a time. We sometimes encounter landowner fatigue with all the different groups out there representing slightly different interests. To gain the confidence of these landowners, it's imperative that conservation practitioners at all levels collaborate to present a coordinated message.

My final recommendation is to improve science communication to the public so that it is transparent and understandable, and to promote habitat conservation in the mainstream media. Making the link between the environment and the economy is absolutely critical; each one is dependent on the other. There have been significant efforts in Ontario and elsewhere to quantify the true value of ecological goods and services, both to the economy and society as a whole. A full-on cultural shift is necessary to understand and accept the connection of our own well-being to that of the natural world around us.

I'll close with a quote from the Senegalese poet and naturalist, Baba Dioum, who said, “In the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Barrett.

You're right on 10 minutes. I appreciate your sensitivity to that. Also, thank you for providing the committee with a written submission. It's very helpful for us to go back and refer to.

We'll now move to Mr. Doug Chorney with the Keystone Agricultural Producers.

[Doug Chorney, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, fellow witnesses and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here.

I am the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which is Manitoba's general farm policy group. We represent 7,000 farm families and 19 commodity groups across the province. Agriculture accounts for 5% of Manitoba's GDP. Industries connected to agriculture include food and beverage processing, agri-business manufacturing, value-added processing, and transportation.

Manitoba has a total farm area of 18 million acres, of which about 12 million are cultivated for cropland. KAP policy is very clear on the area of endangered species. KAP believes that farmers and landowners must be fully compensated for any measures required and any losses incurred while protecting endangered species on their property as mandated by legislation.

So who are the stakeholders? Obviously, farmers, agri-retailers, farm-equipment dealers and manufacturers, rural residents, conservation districts, eco activists and environmentalists, hunters, fishers, and first nations.

Who are the relevant stakeholder groups in Manitoba? They would be the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, and the Manitoba Conservation Districts Association. These groups are responsible for the majority of publicly available knowledge regarding habitat conservation.

So what is the current state here in Manitoba? Since 2005 in Manitoba 6,462 farmers have completed an environmental farm plan representing over 8.8 million acres. The environmental farm plan program promotes the use of land and also provides financial incentives and beneficial management practices to accommodate environmental objectives.

Further to that, in the last year we've begun a process of forming the 4R Manitoba program. Keystone Agricultural Producers, along with the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and the Manitoba Government, are signatories to a memorandum of understanding to implement the 4R nutrient stewardship program and to see this brought into effect not just for livestock producers but also for crop producers across the province who are using synthetic nutrients. The objective is to protect waterways and ecosystems in Manitoba from nutrient runoff.

In 2006 KAP partnered with Delta Waterfowl to deliver the ALUS program to producers in the province. Under ALUS, farmers received payments to protect conservation land. Through this they delivered a variety of environmental services, including those involving wildlife and pollinator habitat, improved water quality, cleaner air, and carbon sequestration. ALUS's success can be seen in Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and, most recently, Saskatchewan.

As for agriculture and habitat conservation, farmers are stewards of the land out of necessity for their business. They are also in the best position to manage the habitats they are inhabiting. Habitats on farmland have decreased. Often the most ecologically varied lands are the most productive for farmland. Producers are often put under a microscope for their practices while urban residences can pollute with general impunity.

Government's role is to provide comprehensive and realistic responses to the land-use paradox faced by farmers. They're responsible for creating economic opportunities and feeding populations by farming the land while also being responsible for limiting any losses due to the disruption of the natural landscape. Over-regulation of farmers does not necessarily yield the best results when it comes to conservation efforts. Regulations are often not flexible enough to recognize the significant differences among farming operations. As well, they are often not enforceable at a meaningful level.

I could add that as of 2013 my family has been farming the same land in Canada for 110 years. Over that 110-year period we have not moved and we are still running our crop production sustainably on the lands we originally settled.

Regarding our recommended responses, we have found that education and incentive-based programs have a more positive result, because they allow producers to identify areas of significant opportunity that result in the highest cost-benefit ratio for e-genus provisions. Incentive programs like ALUS and the environmental farm plan program reward best practices and generate a culture of cooperation between farmers, government, and habitat.

We need to attach realistic values to the ecological goods and services, and provide the tools for the promotion of the service. The focus does not have to be on loss of land; rather, it can be on landscape, ecosystem, and habitat-based incentives. We need to encourage a dialogue between stakeholder groups, landowners, producers, and governments. Canada needs to have a working landscape. The bounty and beauty of our country is a national treasure for us all to enjoy. Managed properly, we can succeed in meeting our conservation objectives, while ensuring economic rewards for generations to come. I'm proud of the role agriculture can contribute to the future of the environment.

I would like to discuss ALUS a little bit, though I know this is perhaps somewhat repetitive for the committee because we've talked about it before. Essentially, ALUS pays farmers to reconstruct natural ecosystems. It rehabilitates life support processes for water filtration, purification, and nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration. The natural benefits include clean air and water, and habitat for fish and wildlife and species at risk, and sustainable food production on a working landscape.

Under ALUS, farmers conserve and restore essential features, such as wetlands, creeks, shorelines, native upland grasses, trees, and unique habitats such as tallgrass prairie. They help restore declining biodiversity for amphibians and native pollinated species.

While each ALUS project will have unique characteristics, the following operational principles are common across the program:

First, it's voluntary. Farmers choose to participate. They will be reimbursed a portion of their start-up capital costs, usually ranging from 50% to 100%. They will in most cases also receive an annual payment for performance when completing the program delivered.

Second, there is capping. Often farmers will enrol their cultivated land, but this excludes forested land areas because they would not be directly affected.

Third, it's integrated within the system. Every effort will be made to integrate projects with existing programs, such as crop insurance, extension services, a county's official plan, water source protection, incentive programs for BMPs, public and private conservation programs.

Fourth, it's targeted. Environmentally sensitive areas will be a priority for stewardship. Fragile or marginal lands may be retired from cultivation or farmed in a different manner to benefit the environment, as identified by the landowner through the environmental farm planning process. Natural features such as wetlands and associated upland areas, or other combinations of unique ecological services are preferred.

Fifth, it's flexible. Farmers will sign a three-year agreement; however, the ability to opt-out every three years will remain and give flexibility to the farmer to adapt to changing economic conditions. Reimbursement of payments made for start-up costs and ecological services will be required in such cases.

Lastly, regarding trade, the ALUS project must be production neutral, so it will comply with trade rules.

That concludes my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chorney, and thank you for re-emphasizing the alternate land use strategy for many of us on the committee. There's a rotation of committee members, so it's always good to be reminded of the different programs that are out there, that all of us may not be aware of.

We move now to Mr. Darrell Crabbe, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

[Darrell Crabbe, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation]

Good morning.

I'd like to first of all thank you for the opportunity to address the standing committee. Perhaps I can give you somewhat of an on-the-ground perspective on habitat securement and other habitat programs.

The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation represents 32,000 members and 121 branches across Saskatchewan. We are certainly predominantly a rural organization, with 93% of our membership coming from outside of the two major cities in Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon.

Our habitat trust program began 32 years ago. As of this year, we currently hold title to 62,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat in our province. We have conservation agreements on an additional 300,000 acres with landowners. We hold conservation easements on approximately 9,000 acres in the province. We also manage many of the other parcels for other NGOs and the provincial government. And we are heavily engaged and partners in the ALUS program here in Saskatchewan.

In response to your questions, we would refer three—(a), (d), and (e)—to other sources for answers, but we would like to address question (b): “Does Canada have publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation? What are the sources of this information and how is it disseminated?”

There is a great deal of publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation on the landscape. I would, however, state that the general consensus is that the federal government only recognizes national organizations in this field and not those who operate at the provincial level.

To question (c)—“What are the most effective habitat conservation groups or organizations, and what actions do they take?”—I would of course focus in on provincial organizations. Our experience shows us that conservation efforts are much more widely supported at a community level, that promotes ownership, than the national program, that does not engage those communities or its constituents.

Question (f) asks, “How can the federal government improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada?” First of all, we feel that if they were to ensure that future conservation programs were developed to provide access at the community level, not just national or international organizations whose conservation tends to not be shared by all residents...be able to provide realistic protocols for the funding opportunities or models, and provide realistic timelines for approval and delivery of the funding.

I might comment that the focus of this committee is described as a focus “to find ways in which the National Conservation Plan can complement and enhance current habitat conservation efforts”. It's interesting to note that the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation has ceased trying to access federal funding in our habitat conservation efforts, either terrestrial or aquatic.

Our previous experience of what we would consider unreasonable red tape, multi-level approval mechanisms, and decision timelines that were measured in months, not weeks, made any funding opportunities unrealistic for our organization to contemplate in our conservation programs.

We would comment that this wheel does not have to be rediscovered, as there are existing programs, with protocols in place to ensure program compliance and results, in effect in Saskatchewan, and they have been for the last 30 years. It's called the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund.

This system provides the necessary approval timelines and guidelines to make it a very efficient and effective program. In addition, because this program is delivered from a grassroots community level, we've recognized that we were able to secure habitat at a greatly reduced cost compared with national organizations, and that the members of the community accept the ownership, appreciate, and add an added layer of protection to these habitats.

We appreciate the opportunity to address this committee on the fundamental quality of life issue for the residents of Saskatchewan and Canada.

One last point I might make is that we're also currently involved in a very large connectivity model study here in Saskatchewan, being funded by a Go Green program from the Province of Saskatchewan. Again, the ALUS program seems to be doing very, very well in our province.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Crabbe.

At this point, I want to thank our technical people, our IT people, for great video access today. I'm not sure who all is responsible, but I think it's important that as committee members we acknowledge their contribution to the success of our meeting today.

I'm going to move now to seven-minute rounds of questions from our members of the committee.

I would remind you, members, to please address each question to a specific witness so that we don't waste time deciding which person will respond. Obviously, if you want to switch between witnesses during your seven minutes, that's fine.

We're going to begin with Mr. Sopuck.

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

Thank you very much.

Many thanks to our witnesses.

Mr. Crabbe, you talked about the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund. Where does that money come from?

[Darrell Crabbe]

Thirty per cent of all licence fees for hunting, angling, or trapping are put into the fund. The fund has a steering committee made up of seven representative organizations in Saskatchewan.

The fund has in it three different pillars, if you like: habitat securement, fisheries enhancement work, and public education on habitat and fisheries and outdoors.

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

I appreciate that, and again it's important for the committee and Canadians to know that it's the hunters and anglers stepping up to the plate with money to do habitat conservation that's of benefit to all of society. I feel very strongly that the role of hunters and anglers in conservation, as the primary conservationists, is often neglected. I'm sure you would agree with that, Mr. Crabbe.

Ms. Barrett, you talked about the land purchase of critical habitat as being an important component of conservation programming. As you know, our government is committing between $20 million to $25 million a year to both The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited to do just that.

Do you support that program, Ms. Barrett?

[Kim Barrett]

Certainly I would support any program that funds purchases of ecologically significant lands, particularly in southern Ontario where land prices are just so astronomical. We can use any help we can get on the financial side of things for securing these properties.

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

I know Mr. Chorney has some concerns about that particular program, as do those of us who own land. Nevertheless, it's an example of the federal government basically putting its dollars down and generating some significant results.

Ms. Barrett, you talked about the role of government in terms of prescriptive programming. But government programming can either be incentive-based or regulation-based. Given that you work mostly on a privately owned landscape with the conservation agencies that you represent, which of the two do you prefer, the regulatory or the incentive approach?

[Kim Barrett]

I think there's really room for both and it depends on the type of landowner that you're talking about. Typically with the farming community, incentives are a much better way to go. Farmers already know what's happening on their properties. Many of them have been stewards of the land for years. They know what they should be doing. They want to do the right thing, but oftentimes the only piece of the puzzle that's missing is the financial resources to actually implement habitat conservation projects on their properties.

There is an important piece, though, with the regulatory approach. I guess the first thing is the listing process for species at risk. That's a trigger to open up funding pots to landowners who access funds that they wouldn't have available to them if they didn't have species at risk on their property—for certain pots of money, anyway.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chorney, I'd like to pursue the regulatory versus incentives approach. Doesn't the regulatory approach under SARA, if it were fully implemented, and even in the situation where it is now, threaten property rights and make owning habitat for a native species on your farm, for example, a liability as opposed to an asset?

Could you comment on that, Mr. Chorney?

[Doug Chorney]

Yes, I would agree with that conclusion. It would be a concern and a liability going forward if we implemented the full measures. We need to have a practical approach to conserving habitat that makes sense to the people who are operating that landscape and responsible for it.

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

Just to pursue that more, how would we then turn endangered species habitat on privately owned land into an asset for the landowner as opposed to a liability? How do we do that?

[Doug Chorney]

You would have to impose some valuation on providing that service. The ALUS type approach where the landowner has a motivation to provide that habitat financially would be the best incentive to see that happen. It would then become an asset rather than a liability. We do know there are tourist opportunities with habitat that can be accessed by people coming to your farm. That's an important economic opportunity.

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

Given the federal role in agricultural policy in Canada, Mr. Chorney, would you support a change in agricultural policy so that incentive-based conservation programming on the privately owned landscape becomes a part of Canada's agricultural policy?

[Doug Chorney]

I would. I think that would make a lot of sense. We do draw a lot of comparisons to the environmental farm planning process and how we had policy that drove that process. It was a relatively new thing a dozen years ago for producers to engage in environmental farm planning but it really shows how, through enforcing the proper policies and incentive-based systems, you can change the way people operate their farms and manage their environments.

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

Given that you talk to other farm leaders from across the country on a regular basis, do you think there's widespread support among the farm community and organized farm groups for an incentive-based conservation program?

[Doug Chorney]

Most certainly. I know that's the case. The ALUS program was begun somewhat in Manitoba and has become popular across the country. I often meet not just with other farmers but also with bureaucrats in the civil service. I know the deputy minister from Prince Edward Island was commenting to me how they have really modelled what they're doing in that province on what they learned from Manitoba. It's definitely a widespread and, I think, popular idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck, Mr. Chorney, and our other witnesses who responded to questions.

We move now to Mr. Pilon.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.