Environment Committee on May 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call meeting 74 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order, please.

I welcome our witnesses with us today. We have Mr. Terry Quinney, the provincial manager of fish and wildlife services with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Welcome, Mr. Quinney. From the Alberta Wilderness Association, we have Mr. Cliff Wallis. Welcome. From the Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council, we have Mr. Reginald Melanson, executive director, and Luc Robitaille, chair.

We're going to proceed in the order I just mentioned. We begin first with a 10-minute opening statement from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Mr. Terry Quinney.

Mr. Quinney, proceed, please.

[Dr. Terry Quinney, Provincial Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good morning. Thank you, again, for extending the invitation.

My presentation to you this morning focuses on answering your study question of, “How can the federal government improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada?” I will answer the question by referring you, firstly, to certain recommendations from the recent National Fish and Wildlife Conservation Congress, and secondly, by presenting a business case example from Ontario, namely, the community fisheries and wildlife involvement program, CFWIP.

It was approximately this time last year, if memory serves me correctly, that I appeared before your committee during your study review of the Species At Risk Act. At that time I extended the invitation, if it were possible, for members to join us at the national fish and wildlife congress, which took place in Ottawa this time last year. I'm pleased to be able to share some of the final recommendations that are now available from that very first inaugural Canadian National Fish and Wildlife Conservation Congress last May that was co-hosted by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in association with the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and a number of conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Habitat Canada.

The goals of that congress included inspiring increased efforts for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats into this new century. Among the highlights of the recommendations I would like to present to you is the recommendation that the federal Government of Canada declare fish and wildlife habitat conservation a national priority, that we collectively build a wildlife constituency by educating youth, enhancing nature education and outdoor guidance, and reaching out to all citizens to recognize the value of natural capital, to make stewardship a core value and improve the public's connection to nature and wildlife.

The recommendations also include expanding support for fish and wildlife conservation through public education and initiatives that foster participation and activities such as fishing, hunting, and other outdoor-related activities. Among the final recommendations is that the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in collaboration, for example, with cities and municipalities, should develop a national fish and wildlife strategy that includes fish and wildlife and habitat conservation priorities. Thus, we're encouraged by the government's announcement last year of the intention to formulate a national conservation plan, and we envision habitat conservation to be a priority within that new national conservation plan.

We also collectively believe that fishing and hunting deserve a prominent place at the table when we discuss elements of a national conservation plan, and that will, of course, include our relationships with responsible resource development and management, because of course, fishing and hunting activities are a vital part of Canada's economy and have a huge financial impact right across our national economy.

With that, I would like to offer a concrete business case, if you like, in terms of how the federal government may participate in improving habitat conservation in Canada.

I want to present an example from my home province of Ontario where for approximately 25 years a very successful community-based fish and wildlife habitat conservation program has been in place. I've referred to it as the community fisheries and wildlife improvement program. That program saw a very modest investment from the Ontario government of $1 million a year. Recently, that program has been reconfigured, and I'll refer to that a little later.

But what I want to emphasize is that with that modest investment leveraging each year, an amount of over $20 million in total value resulted from this community fisheries and wildlife improvement program. The specifics include the fact that over 35,000 community-based volunteers contributed over 200,000 person-years in support of 600 projects across the province, including: habitat restoration, fish culture and stocking, tree planting, and stream bank fencing and stabilization. All of which, of course, are under the mandate of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

The point is that for that modest investment, huge returns were occurring. More recently, the Government of Ontario has decreased its contribution to that program and renamed it, but the point is that the track record has shown that these partnerships and modest investments, by all levels of government, can result in huge returns on investment.

With that, I hope I have provided at least some examples to illustrate how the Government of Canada can improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Quinney.

We'll move now to Mr. Cliff Wallis, the vice-president of the Alberta Wilderness Association.

I neglected to mention at the outset that the Forest Products Association of Canada witness, Mark Hubert, had a medical emergency and is unable to join us today, so we'll attempt to reschedule Mr. Hubert.

Mr. Wallis.

[Cliff Wallis, Vice-President, Alberta Wilderness Association]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

It's a great opportunity to be here to speak to a subject important to me and to many Canadians, the subject of habitat conservation in Canada. The AWA has been working in this area since the late 1960s. We work with governments, private landowners, and first nations to achieve greater protection for wild species, wild lands, and wild waters in all the natural regions of Alberta.

I know you've received some good input already on some of the same themes that I hear from my colleagues here today, including the views of our sister organization, Nature Canada, a few weeks ago. We support the notion that all wildlife species deserve a no net loss of productive capacity of habitat as a principle underlying federal policy and law governing habitat conservation. We are in complete agreement that we need strong networks of protected areas focusing on areas of highest conservation value. We have examples such as important bird areas, habitat for species at risk, and un-fragmented, un-roaded areas. In Alberta we have things called environmentally significant areas that have been mapped.

Canada is a signatory to many important conventions on biological diversity, migratory birds in the wetlands, and for example, Ramsar. We've made commitments to protected areas. Unfortunately, we haven't met our targets nor, I believe, the aspirations of most Canadians who consistently state in polls that this notion of protected wildlife and their habitat is important to them. I have many examples of those polls if you want to see them. They include rural people as well as urban people. There's a myth that there's a split there. We have different ways of going about it, but there's a lot of support from Canadians for this.

Canada has led in the past in establishing national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, and national marine protected areas. We need federal and provincial governments to complete these systems if we're going to meet our goals. Unfortunately, one could characterize government policy—not just federal but also provincial policies—as going fast on economic development and slow on conservation. This must come more into balance. We would argue that conservation, especially in some threatened regions of the country such as the grassland region, needs to be sped up dramatically. We can't just talk about it anymore. We have to act.

In 2011 Canadian farmers got 16% of their revenues from federal and provincial governments, according to the OECD. All together, direct support payments to farmers totalled almost $2.5 billion in 2011. Yet, an insignificant amount of money goes into subsidies for conserving biodiversity either on private land or on leased public lands. Even less of that subsidy ends up with ranchers who steward large areas of native grassland that support a rich biodiversity and some of the largest populations of species at risk in Canada. Since the removal of agricultural subsidies, although it may be a good idea, seems politically unlikely, we believe that all these subsidies need reform. A good proportion of the subsidy, we believe, must go toward providing the ecological goods and services that Canadians say they want.

We have not looked critically for some time at the forest industry and energy subsidies, but we did look at them over the eighties and nineties. Both direct and indirect subsidies of these industries have worked against conservation and promoted massive changes in habitat quality in Alberta. While we would be happy to see all these types of subsidies that promote habitat degradation removed, again, it's politically unlikely. At least some of them should be refocused on conservation and the provision of ecological goods and services.

As an immigrant, and one who came to appreciate Canada and its wild spaces after coming here from the UK, I believe it's important to help connect new Canadians to wild spaces and wild species. As someone who has spent a good part of my youth and my later life outdoors, I've been fortunate in that regard. I think it is essential to find ways to connect and reconnect our young people to the outdoors, both for health and conservation support reasons.

The AWA is working with local ranching communities and first nations on initiatives such as the sage grouse partnership in southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, and the Hay-Zama committee up in northwestern Alberta. We co-manage with the local community a large protected area in the grasslands of southeastern Alberta along the Milk River canyon, and we advise on management of the Hay-Zama wildland park, as we phase out oil and gas activity in that internationally significant wetland complex.

These types of processes, which government facilitates but does not lead, have been some of our most rewarding. In the end, a national approach to conservation must be both place-based and people-based, and must be well resourced. If we fail on any of those, we won't be as effective as we should be.

The AWA recommends considering the following: a no net-loss principle for conservation, especially on federal lands; completing Canada's system of protected areas and conservation lands at all levels of government; finding ways to engage Canadians, particularly new Canadians and youth with wild places and wild species; reform agricultural and energy policies to fully recognize the value of native habitats and the communities, ecosystem services, and biodiversity that depend on them; institute payments for ecosystem services from private and leased public lands through both private markets, such as those being created for carbon credits, and direct government payments.

As I said, this is an area where we'd rather there be no subsidies, but if there are going to be subsidies, let's balance it out. We also need to expand support for first nations' interests in biodiversity conservation that builds on their traditional linkages of their cultures and economies with wild places and wild species. We need to conduct a review of all federal lands to determine if they are being well managed for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and no federal land should be sold without such a public review.

There's an example of the Suffield military reserve, which is being managed for multiple use right now and contains a national wildlife area, but the British Army is reconsidering whether they're going to continue in that area. That may be an opportunity for conservation.

The government is dismembering the PFRA, and the Govenlock pasture is actually in federal ownership. It's one that we believe should be designated a national wildlife area and would contribute to the conservation of many species at risk, including sage grouse.

We need to provide education and extension services that enable private land managers to manage their land and businesses in ways that are both profitable and sustainable, and that continue to support that full range of ecosystem services and their associated economic benefits.

The last one is this notion of matching funds. Political parties get a very good match on their donations, if you wish, and charities don't get anywhere near as much. We believe that conservation charities and other charities.... What better way for the public of Canada to express its support than by donating to these organizations that do so much good work across Canada? If we had a better match, I think a lot more would get done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Wallis.

We will now move to the Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council.

Mr. Robitaille, proceed, please.

[Luc Robitaille, Chair, Holcim Canada Inc., Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for providing Canadian Business and Biodiversity Council the privilege to be here today and present to you some thoughts of the council members on habitat conservation in Canada.

The council is relatively new. It started in 2009. Its purpose is to help Canadian businesses understand and incorporate conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and the ecosystem services it provides into their long-term planning and everyday business activities. Today, this has been accomplished through a series of case studies on business best practices, the development of corporate and SME biodiversity conservation guides, workshops, surveys, and the adoption of a business declaration.

The council has gained national and global recognition for its accomplishment, and is currently the chair of the global business and biodiversity partnership. The parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity have for some time been exploring ways to enhance private sector collaboration in achieving the goals of the convention. The eighth meeting of the parties of the convention in Brazil, in 2006, initially identified the need for business involvement in biodiversity conservation. The CBBC has been active at both the COP 10 in Japan and COP 11 in India. In fact, we're planning to host a preparatory meeting in Montreal this October for international business interest, prior to COP 12 that will take place in South Korea in 2014. The council is positioning itself to provide Canada's private sector response to the COP decisions.

As well as contributing to the substance of the decisions themselves, we believe that healthy, natural habitats and ecosystems sustain Canada's economy, provide invaluable ecosystem services, and contribute significantly to the health and well-being of all Canadians.

Now I will answer the questions that were raised in your study here.

What types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation?

Broadly stated, all Canadians, including Canadian business, are stakeholders in habitat conservation. Industry will continue to play a key role in conservation of habitat in Canada. Over the past few decades there's been an increased expectation for industry to plan and integrate biodiversity conservation into business operations. The role of business in conservation is critical in addressing regulatory requirements, but also in optimizing the value of ecosystem services and in helping to achieve well-thought-out targets for conservation.

In fact, many progressive businesses in Canada are setting their own conservation targets, and in a transparent manner, challenging themselves to meet their own conservation expectations.

However, in order for business to become effectively involved in conservation activities, there needs to be a comprehensive and easily accessed source of data that is based on good science. Business does not only want to be active, but it wants to ensure it is effective and that work is done in areas where work is needed most.

Examples of projects that have taken place in Canada include the following. You have the OPG involvement with community partners to support regional ecosystems. You have Holcim's quarry rehabilitation program, which has restored more than 200 hectares at the Milton quarry to a fully functioning natural habitat, and is also leading an effort to develop an industry-wide standard for sustainable aggregate extraction. There's Syngenta, with its wetland habitat restoration program. You have Canada's peat industry, which has entered into a certification program for peatland restorations, and you have Suncor participating with universities for ways to restore—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Could I just ask you to slow down just a bit? Our interpreters are doing a great job, but it's difficult. I'll give you an extra 30 seconds to finish, if you need that.

Thank you.

[Luc Robitaille]

All right. No problem, Mr. Chair.

Xstrata has implemented Canada-wide biodiversity evaluations and management plans for their properties.

It's very difficult to quantify the work that has been done by a wide range of stakeholders, including business, as much of it is not reported. Much of the business-associated habitat conservation work is actually carried out not by individual businesses but frequently through partnerships with local or national conservation groups. There's also a lot of work carried out by individuals on their properties. But there's no single entity that produces an annual report of all habitat conservation activities in Canada.

The second question you asked was about “publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation”. In Canada, there is much readily accessible information on habitat conservation. The information is available in documents, online, through conservation organizations, from government, and also through industry associations. Some specific examples of information and expertise available include: NatureServe Canada, through its conservation data centres, which provide information on species at risk; Carolinian Canada, with its Big Picture project, which identifies natural heritage systems of large core natural areas, other significant natural areas, corridors, and linkages; and information provided by various types of NGOs in Canada.

There's a collective of substantial expertise throughout Canada. However, some of this information may be scattered, mainly through the diversity of ecosystems, but also through the sheer size of our country. In 2012, the CBBC conducted a survey. It found that 84% of respondents found the accuracy of data available to them was deficient, and 79% of respondents found there was not enough data to meet their needs.

What are the most effective habitat conservation groups?

Well, it's difficult to put a name to the most effective habitat conservation groups in Canada without additional criteria, such as the number of acres conserved, the effective use of funding, community engagement, species of concern, and such things. Small local groups can be very effective, and they often have local support, including from business. They normally tackle smaller projects, but the cumulative effect of these projects is often as important as larger projects. Local groups are also aware of local issues that can often garner hands-on support for conservation actions.

National organizations can be more effective in getting a broader base of support and frequently have research-oriented sections within their organizations. However, these organizations may pursue higher-profile projects that may be more costly but may not necessarily meet the need for conservation. Ducks Unlimited Canada, when it comes to on-the-ground conservation activities, is one of the stellar organizations in Canada. One of the important components that gives strength to an organization is its members. Not only does DUC have a great membership, but these members dedicate substantial time to helping raise funds for the organization and to working on conservation projects.

How is “conserved land” defined and accounted for in Canada?

There are many conservation techniques that are used in Canada, such as fee simple acquisitions, easements, conservation agreements, stewardship agreements, and such. There are so many ways for this to be accounted for, and some organizations may count the same acres several times, whether they're secured, restored, or managed.

There are also different definitions of specific terms. For example, one organization may consider an acre secured through a time-limited stewardship agreement, while another may consider this acre to not be secured but only influenced. This can have a great influence on the numbers of conserved acres in our records. Conserved lands can mean different things to different people. For some, it can mean only land that is removed from human impacts, while for others it may mean that it is managed in ways that allow for healthy habitats and species while also allowing human activities, as long as they are environmentally and economically sustainable.

The definition of conservation seems to be a universally accepted term. The main difference between countries is how this activity is accomplished. When looking independently at land or water conservation, businesses tend to focus on the concept of integrated landscape management, which ensures that important conservation values are conserved regardless of the official status of the land, while allowing compatible development activities where they can be undertaken without causing a net permanent loss of important conservation value.

When it comes to recovering a species, how do best management practices initiatives compare to prescriptive government-related measures?

The best management practices are often referred to as stewardship initiatives and are activities that are implemented generally on a voluntary basis. They are usually up and above regulatory requirements. Prescriptive and government-mandated measures are usually the minimum business must do to maintain their regulated licence to operate. These measures will guarantee a specific habitat quality that should ensure the continued health of a species in habitat conditions. These measures are often very effective in providing direction to business and legislators in the long-term planning exercises to help conservation species in habitats, but it may not be enough to stop the decline due to other circumstances.

Businesses that adopt and implement best practices are showing a commitment to conservation and are often going well beyond their regulatory requirements. These voluntary steps above prescriptive measures may be what are required to put the species and the habitat well on the way to recovery.

How can the federal government improve habitat conservation in Canada?

The federal government has created national parks, wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, and such, but there is still more that needs to be done to conserve our habitats and species, so we can rely on them. The federal government must not only lead by example, but must provide the tools, resources, and incentives for others to become actively involved in habitat conservation activities.

These include: completing national environmental assessments at the regional and ecosystems level; implementing conservation measures to measure the ability of natural habitats to provide the services needed to maintain environmental and economic sustainability; completing and following up the national conservation plans; ensuring that federally held lands have a habitat conservation plan in place, not only for species at risk; developing conservation education programs that are aimed at all sectors of society, including schools and businesses; providing support to NGOs that are struggling to assist Canadian businesses to develop and implement environmental conservation into their daily business activities;—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Robitaille, we need to have you wind up very shortly.

[Luc Robitaille]

I have two sentences left.

—providing financial incentives through a wide variety of public-private partnerships; and taking measures to improve timely and comprehensive conservation data availability.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Robitaille.

We'll move now to the rounds of questions by committee members. The first round will be a seven-minute round.

We'll begin with the government side, Mr. Sopuck, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Quinney, can you describe the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters? How many members do you have and how many different affiliates do you have?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has approximately 85,000 dues-paying members. In addition, we have over 700 member or affiliated community-based clubs. In addition to that, of course, we have many important partners and supporters from the private sector who help us accomplish our conservation programming.

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

How many of those clubs and affiliates are involved in habitat conservation?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Easily over 100.

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

These are active programs we're talking about, on the ground?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

These are active clubs whose priority mandate includes on-the-ground, in-the-water fish and wildlife conservation projects. In other words, people getting their hands dirty and their feet wet.

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

Again, I'm so very impressed with the hunting and angling community in terms of the on-the-ground work they do. Quite simply, the hunters and anglers of Canada do not get the recognition they deserve, although I'm very happy to say our government has created the hunting and angling advisory panel of which OFAH is a part. The influence of the hunting and angling community not only was felt in the past but will be significantly increased over the next little while.

Dr. Quinney, in terms of OFAH and your relationship with agriculture, Mr. Wallis talked about payments for ecosystem services to farmers. Is that something OFAH would support?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

Firstly, may I say that in the province of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was a charter contributor to the experimental ALUS—alternative land use services—program that specifically targeted the farming community with reference to encouraging, through financial incentives, farmers to supply nature-based benefits from their lands, for example, fish and wildlife.

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

Excellent.

Mr. Wallis, we had a discussion last week about the IUCN criteria to measure conserved lands, and to my surprise and the surprise of many members of the committee, some of Canada's crown jewels, in terms of conservation lands, don't quality under the IUCN criteria. It seems to me that the IUCN criteria are woefully deficient in terms of what they measure, because they significantly undercount what Canada is doing. Would you agree that the IUCN criteria are not really adequate to describe Canada's efforts?

[Cliff Wallis]

I'm not sure that they are inadequate. They describe a certain part of the effort. I think that's more correct.

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

Right.

[Cliff Wallis]

Where we have failed is on the side of large protected areas. There are area-dependent species, like caribou and sage grouse, that need areas free of industrial activity. Many species will benefit from better management practices, but we need to do a better job on actually protecting larger blocks of habitat. I think that's where we've been deficient. Alberta didn't meet its targets under Special Places 2000, for example, and those were business plan targets from a very conservative government. If that government can't even meet its own business plan targets, then we have a serious problem.

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

The problem, though, is that we're never measuring ecological outputs. All we do is measure what I call artificial inputs. For example, we had the natural areas conservation program, under which both Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada were provided with funds to secure and manage some of Canada's crown jewels of habitat. I have a 320-acre conservation easement on my own farm through the NCC, which was done many years ago. Again, to my surprise, none of those crown jewels of land count under IUCN criteria. They don't count under most criteria, yet the environmental amenities that they conserve, and the ecological outputs from those lands are very significant. Again, these artificial criteria that just measure inputs are deficient. Don't you think they should be measuring ecological outputs?

[Cliff Wallis]

I think we have other measures—for example, species at risk—and I think those are telling us how well we're doing on the land. In the grasslands, for example, we have a high number of species at risk, because I don't think we've done the job of protecting enough areas. It doesn't mean to say that those private conservation efforts—I work with private landowners who are doing conservation—don't actually meet the IUCN criteria; they're just not measured. There are other proxies we have for telling, so you have to consider all of the things and not just look at the IUCN.

It's an important measure, so we can measure that. But I agree with you that we need to be measuring other things. Some of those measures are telling us that we're still failing, and hence, I think we need to refocus on areas that are in trouble, and support private investments in private land for conservation and measure that. I think they're all part of the equation. I don't think we're doing a good job on measuring that, so I'll agree with you there.