Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Bob Bleaney and l am vice-president, external relations, of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP. Joining me today by teleconference from Calgary are Alex Ferguson, vice-president of policy and environment; and David Pryce, vice-president of operations at CAPP.
CAPP represents Canada's upstream oil and gas sector. Our members find and develop over 90% of Canada's petroleum resources, invest more than $60 billion a year, and employ more than 550,000 people across the country.
We welcome the opportunity today to provide CAPP's perspective on habitat conservation in Canada.
Let me start by saying that CAPP is supportive of efforts to develop a broad vision for conservation in Canada. CAPP previously provided our views on the development of a national conservation framework when we appeared before this committee in May 2012. We highlighted the importance of recognizing that conservation involves many governments and a multitude of stakeholders, and we observed that it would be constructive to focus on establishing broad goals, principles, and priorities, under which conservation would be advanced.
We also view it as important to consider existing legislation, such as the Species at Risk Act, SARA, as it's illustrative of the restrictions that legislation can put on the options available to provide for habitat conservation and positive environmental outcomes. CAPP has provided the federal government with our perspectives on the need for changes to SARA, which could serve to assist in habitat conservation.
Prior to addressing the committee's specific questions, I would like to outline CAPP's considerations on habitat conservation in Canada.
First, the overall focus should be on responsible environmental outcomes, rather than a prescriptive plan, with inherent flexibility to adapt to the circumstances of specific regions and interests. Second, protection of species must look beyond conservation of habitat, although conservation is certainly a dimension of species protection. Third, conservation must not be focused on exclusion of use, but rather consider working landscapes, which enable more balanced policy by allowing more flexibility in land use, including temporal flexibility.
Turning now to the specific questions posed by the committee, I'll provide the following CAPP perspectives.
With respect to the types of stakeholders involved in habitat conservation, CAPP considers these to include all levels of government; aboriginal peoples; habitat conservation organizations; academic institutions, as centres for scientific research; non-governmental organizations with specific interests in relation to conservation; private landowners; and land users, both industrial and non-industrial rights holders. Collectively, these represent major contributors to habitat conservation. However, it's important to note that the general public also plays a key role, through demands on the land and consumption patterns.
With respect to available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation, Canada has considerable capacity in this arena, in large part due to private sector investment. CAPP believes publicly available or accessible information is necessary to achieve better habitat conservation outcomes. This information is also important to help instill public confidence in those outcomes. Our industry has funded several bodies that conduct research or gather information to inform habitat management, including the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada, the science and community environmental knowledge fund, Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, and the Foothills Research Institute.
With respect to the most effective groups or organizations, CAPP views landowners and users and conservation organizations as the most effective. Resource industries, agricultural, recreational, and other land owners and users can be significant contributors to habitat conservation through their daily choices.
Conservation organizations with an on-the-ground focus—such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and the Alberta Conservation Association—are effective because of their ability to collaborate with multiple stakeholders. They also recognize the need to manage landscapes over time, and the value of working landscapes as one of the many tools for habitat conservation. As well, they are effective because of their technical capacity to prioritize, implement, and assess the efficacy of habitat conservation projects; their priorities being consistent with national or provincial habitat conservation objectives; their capacity to leverage resources; and their excellent reputations with Canadians.
CAPP is highly supportive of the continued presence of such key conservation organizations and of a conservation framework that would support and incentivize appropriate practices of all of these groups.
Next, regarding how conserved land is defined and accounted for in comparison with other countries, the existing definition of “conserved lands” emphasizes the exclusion of land use in order to maintain wilderness, whereas in many other places conserved lands are simply managed lands. The acceptance of managed lands has allowed countries with limited wilderness, such as Germany, to use land more efficiently to achieve many social, economic, and environmental objectives concurrently, including habitat conservation. These countries have transitioned from trying to conserve land to achieving habitat conservation—outcomes that are not the same.
There is an opportunity for the federal government to explore policy options that would recognize and consider both wilderness and habitat conservation as well as managed lands, and through such consideration, promote working landscapes; therefore enabling balanced policy considerations. The key to defining conserved lands must be that the lands are achieving conservation outcomes, rather than a prescription for obtaining an outcome. This outcomes-based definition provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that appropriate actions are recognized and encouraged.
The next question was about best management practices for recovering a species. Flexibility is what's needed here. Effective habitat conservation depends on a framework that involves voluntary best management practices and stewardship initiatives in parallel with government-mandated measures. Notable examples of species management successes are attributable to initiatives outside of government-mandated measures, and include experiences with the grizzly bear and the swift fox.
Canada has not enabled alternative means of achieving the intended environmental outcomes of SARA, or means for voluntarily managing habitat for species at risk. This is especially noteworthy, as the focus of SARA is largely on habitat conservation. Given the number of different species listed and the number of different activities that occur on the landscape, it is essential that different tools are enabled and made available through an improved SARA to ensure that conservation outcomes are achieved.
The last question was about how the federal government can improve habitat conservation efforts. Our view is that an effective habitat conservation framework must be balanced and flexible, and include consideration of a multitude of factors to ensure outcomes that are in Canada's best interest. It must enable and promote voluntary best management practices and stewardship initiatives in parallel with government-mandated measures. It must recognize a broader definition of conserved lands to include both voluntary and formal habitat conservation efforts, as well as consideration for both wilderness and working landscapes. It must ensure that SARA effectively enables species conservation and that compliance mechanisms that are available will enable multiple pathways to attain desired outcomes. The federal government also has a role in communicating to both the Canadian public, and internationally, Canada's conservation efforts.
In summary, we need to focus on achieving responsible environmental outcomes rather than prescriptive measures, support greater use of flexible tools to address habitat and conservation needs, and enable a more balanced policy framework for the benefit of all.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions