Evidence of meeting #74 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 alberta.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Absolutely.
One of the keys in this area, as I understand, has been the engagement of local landowners as well. Is this correct?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
How have you been successfully managing that? Is it through incentives or is it through other forms?
9:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
There are two parts to it. One is to respect their views, their traditions, on the land.
The other is government providing a box in which to play. If the provincial government hadn't said, “We want to create protected areas in the grasslands. You guys go out and tell us how to do that”.... It was hands-off for the government, but they said, “Here's what we want in the end.” It's very important to have that box to play in and for people to be told, “There's a reason we want to do this. This is government policy. Now tell us how to do it.”
I think that's what made it successful. We met our goal. We got a protected area. It wasn't necessarily protected in the way we'd originally envisaged, but it worked. It's been the longest-term partnership we've had.
As I said, it hasn't cost the Government of Alberta anything, because the revenues we generate from grazing contracts with the local ranchers go into the biodiversity research, the fencing, and everything else that supports the management of that site.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
As I understand it, it's been government involvement through overarching targets but not overly prescriptive. There's a need for flexibility, and not necessarily incentives or actually cash in pockets for local landowners but other ways to incentivize them and make sure they're involved in the eventual outcome of the decision. That's how you've had that success.
9:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
That's right. As we go forward in the neighbouring area on the sage grouse partnership, we are looking at incentives where we think that there's a hardship placed on the landowner because of the way we're trying to manage for species at risk. So it's something he normally wouldn't do. We need some form of co-payment so that they're not the ones bearing the burden of society's wishes to see those species conserved.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I also note that you have mentioned the $2.5 billion in direct subsidies that this government has given to farmers for the last year. I agree with you, this government has been very generous when it comes to farm subsidies as there have been some tough times in the Prairies, whether it's floods in Manitoba or droughts in Alberta and Saskatchewan. You talked about changing that. How would you look at changing that to enhance habitat conservation?
9:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
I think it's just refocusing some of those same funds. If we're going to have support payments, let's tell the rural people what kinds of products, what goods and services, we want them to provide for us. I think in the polls going back a long time Canadians, rural and urban, say wildlife habitat, wildlife conservation, is a very important thing to them. So how do we pay for that? We'd rather pay those people. We need stewards on the land looking after it. It's a lot cheaper to have them looking after it than government agencies many times. You need everything from those strictly protected areas to areas that are conserved through local management with payment.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
No. Our organization would just rather there be no subsidies that lead to habitat degradation. I think the first thing is to redo all those subsidies and see whether there are ones that are pushing things negatively on the habitat side. Those should be absolutely removed. If we're going to support our rural communities, let's find other ways of doing it with the same funding, saying we don't necessarily want more of something we can't sell for a good price. Society has said we want these products, and we're willing to pay you for that.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
Create value, and I think there are some pilots starting right now on the sage grouse in southwestern Saskatchewan. I think they will be a telling tale of whether that's going to be successful or not.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
About 15 seconds, you can get a lot in 15 seconds, Mr. Storseth.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony.
Mr. Wallis, I'd like to begin with you. You've given us a lot of recommendations. You talked about grasslands, and you talked about how this needs to be sped up. Could you give this committee a specific recommendation, your wish list, please?
9:35 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
I would recommend the review of all federal lands in terms of whether we are doing the best job of managing for biodiversity. I would also recommend stopping the transfer of those PFRA lands until they're evaluated and making sure there are safeguards in place if they're being transferred back to the province. I would recommend creating a national wildlife area for the Govenlock pasture, specifically there. That would be something immediate for an area that's in much trouble.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
You also talked about subsidies for ecological reserves. I'll ask you to give your specific recommendation to the committee, please.
9:35 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
It's for ecological goods and services payments. It's to redirect existing subsidies into areas that benefit biodiversity. That would be agricultural support systems, and removing subsidies for the forest and energy industry that work against biodiversity. I think those are the premises that we have. But the first focus is on the agricultural supports, and more focused on, for example, ranchers, and then providing areas for the management for species at risk. That's a big problem in the grasslands. For many of Canada's species at risk the biggest concentration has been in the grassland region. If we had some way to pay ranchers for stewarding that land, for improving management practices, that would be a way to start.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I appreciate that. Thank you. So it's the agricultural way to help the ranchers.
Can you now talk about looking at the energy subsidies? Can you give your specific recommendation? You can break it into steps for the committee.
9:35 a.m.
Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association
It has been some time, as I said, since we looked at the energy subsidies, but I don't think that all of the economics are going into the royalty system and everything. Our view is that there's an indirect subsidy, at least for the oil and gas industry. With stumpage fees for forestry, there's another subsidy there.
Again, we think that some of those need to be re-examined and the ones that are most damaging. I don't have any specifics, so I'll leave it up to you and hopefully others are providing that input.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal