Environment committee  I'm not going to put a number on it because, again, I'm not confident enough in my analysis to be able to put a number on it. Obviously, habitat protection is critical. We know that for over 80% of species at risk, their key risk is habitat, so protecting habitat is going to be the solution to that, and restoring habitat.

Environment committee  Our sense is that the key challenges with the act are in implementation, and we're recommending that this be the focus moving forward.

Environment committee  I think you need a scientist to design your study, so I don't really have an answer to that question. Obviously a scientific approach would be good and a rigorous model of looking at the various options. Again, I think there is lots of evidence that we need both of those, at least case-study-type evidence.

Environment committee  I think the relevant end point is species recovery, as the status is the state of the species and the recovery progress in recovering that species. I think to look at which is best is perhaps not the right way. In our view, we need both. We need both the regulatory framework to set the bar on what's needed and to set the standard in a consistent standard.

Environment committee  I mentioned one of them a few minutes ago, which was that the kinds of policy frameworks and regulatory frameworks that were envisioned, that are needed to implement some of the tools in the act, like conservation agreements, are not fully there. The other example, which was mentioned by my colleague here, is the compensation mechanisms.

Environment committee  Australia has recognized that parks and protected areas are not just the venue of governments. In many countries, the protected areas are considered government protected areas, federal state and provincial government protected areas. What Australia has done is they've built a framework that brings all of the efforts to protect lands together under one common framework, with clear goals and targets.

Environment committee  If I said that, I certainly didn't mean there are no incentive programs in place. I think there are tools within the act that have not been fully elaborated and could help to better support work under the act. So, absolutely, the habitat stewardship fund and other incentive programs do exist, but we can also do more under the act.

Environment committee  Thank you. CPAWS has expressed our concerns about the impact of the cuts, particularly to Parks Canada, which is the one I'm most familiar with. In particular, this applies to the cuts to the ecological science and monitoring program. Parks Canada has built one of the best monitoring systems to monitor the health of ecosystems anywhere in the world.

Environment committee  Yes, and obviously sustainable management of the broader landscape is absolutely important, and the forest industry plays an important role, but the protected areas are areas that are set aside from that level of impact. The forest industry recognizes as well the importance of protected areas.

Environment committee  CPAWS works on public land. That's our niche, so we're not involved in private land as much. I will defer that question; however, I think that.... Well, I'll just defer the question.

Environment committee  Well, my understanding is that yes, the act certainly enables the signing of conservation agreements, both for that kind of voluntary stewardship initiative and for those under the permit section of the act. One of the challenges we see is that those stewardship tools, those tools to actually implement the act, have not been fully elaborated on.

Environment committee  At CPAWS, and in Canada generally, we endorse the international definition for a protected area that's put forward under the convention on biodiversity and the IUCN, which has various elements. It's an area that is managed to protect biodiversity as a first priority. It recognizes that there are many other benefits but that the management of nature, or the protection of nature, has to be the first priority.

Environment committee  Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to share our recommendations on terrestrial habitat conservation in Canada with the committee. My name is Alison Woodley. I’m the national conservation director at CPAWS. CPAWS is Canada's voice for public wilderness protection.

Environment committee  I agree with Mr. Wareham. Strong environmental laws are very important and the habitat provisions are part of that. A suite of acts are specifically designed to create marine protected areas, so those are in place. Absolutely, it's important.

Environment committee  We have to work on both private lands and public lands. About 90% of Canada is public lands, so if we work only on private land, we're missing a huge chunk of the country. However, there are significant numbers of species at risk, and there is lots of work to do on the private lands, where most people live.