Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[Oliver Kent]

There clearly needs to be legislation on national urban parks. We would like that legislation to be general and not simply restricted to the Rouge park. As we all start to think harder about this, we will see other opportunities to apply this concept in other parts of the country. It has to be more general enabling legislation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Would it start with a definition of ecological health?

[Oliver Kent]

I agree that it should, yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

We need a definition of ecological health. That should be a recommendation, is that correct?

[Oliver Kent]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

City of Winnipeg, your recommendation is to provide a level of habitat protection through acts such as the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Could you expand on this recommendation and give us as much detail as possible in recommendations to the committee?

[Rodney Penner]

I can't make a recommendation about exactly what we need in the act. What we want to see is a level of federal protection such that if it comes down to a major infrastructure project or something that has the potential to destroy habitat, it is given proper valuation in the project planning and there is something in place. This could relate to fisheries habitat or to another important environmental area. If you go down to the local level and what's in municipal bylaws, we don't necessarily have clauses that will lead to protection in most situations. A federal act can do that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Perhaps you could send to the committee very specific recommendations, because in order to do a really good job of this study, we need that. If you could perhaps give that some thought and send that in, I would appreciate it.

[Rodney Penner]

Sure.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks.

I'm going to ask one last question to Mr. Kent. I have 34 seconds.

I'm going to pick up on my colleague's comments. I am concerned about the cuts to science and how we ensure ecological integrity. I wonder if you could comment on that and make very specific recommendations to the committee regarding that aspect.

[Oliver Kent]

We have commented in the context of the existing park system in our report last July. What I would say is we need to raise the game in the context of urban conservation. It's a tougher, more complex problem, not a simpler one.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That's very specific. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Monsieur Pilon, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question goes to Mr. Penner.

One of the essential environmental areas of responsibility you mentioned is public transit. As we all know, public transit is an important tool in reducing pollution in urban areas and in maintaining a healthier environment in our communities.

Do you think that, to be effective, an urban conservation plan should include a national government strategy on public transit? Would a strategy of that kind be a useful tool to be used in conjunction with the plan?

[Rodney Penner]

Potentially it would. In terms of the natural areas we work with, my expertise is specifically in the park spaces and the natural areas and not so much in transportation planning, but I know that having active transportation—bike routes and things like that—through natural areas has a double value in that people have an alternate way to transit to work or home and they also get to experience a natural environment while they're there, away from a busy street. Any way the federal government can help develop better transportation planning, obviously, would be great.

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

My second question goes to Ms. Minshall.

Can you tell us about the pros and cons of designating the Grand River as a Canadian Heritage River? Since it was so designated in 1994, what, if any, have been the advantages and disadvantages?

[Lorrie Minshall]

It actually was a turning point for the river in terms of the community's recognition of it as an asset. It really was a sewer in its old day, and up through the 1980s, even as the quality improved, people still perceived it that way. The designation really rallied the communities up and down the river, and they put up scenic route signs and actually started to make plans to integrate it into their downtown revitalization plans and to work on the trail networks more by at least investing more in them and connecting them together better. People in the area started to perceive the Grand River as an asset, which it hadn't been before, so it was a big turning point.

It did not impose any restrictions. We have to report every five years on whether or not the things for which it was valued and designated are still there and we haven't actually lost them. I suppose we could lose the designation if we can't keep that up. It is a five-year rally, again, around whether we have done our job here locally.

I can't see there was any disadvantage at all in having the designation. It doesn't place any legal obligations on anyone, but it is a rallying thing for the community.

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

Thank you.

My final question is for Mr. Kent.

We know that there is a lot of tourism in the parks and that is a source of pride. But is conservation easy with all that tourism? Should we encourage more tourism or should we restrict it in order to ensure that we do not destroy our environment?

[Oliver Kent]

That really is a dilemma. In Canada, we have parks, like Banff in the Rockies, that are under great pressure because of the numbers of people going there and the potential commercial development that, of course, interests business. So the environment is at risk in Banff.

On the other hand, there are certainly parks in Canada that could handle more visitors without detriment to the environment. A little earlier, I was talking about Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan. Not a lot of people go to Grasslands National Park. I have never been there myself. I think that we have other parks that are underdeveloped.

Additionally, the Rouge national urban park could be the first national park accessible by public transit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Toet, you have five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today. It's been very enlightening.

Mr. Penner, I want to start with you.

I wanted to assure you, despite some of the fearmongering you may have heard today, that major infrastructure projects will continue to have strong federal environmental protection. In fact, with the changes there will be an enhanced enforcement of those environmental protections, so that's a good-news story.

Also, there was a question regarding transportation. I don't know whether you have been following the news this weekend in Winnipeg, but there was a great announcement in Winnipeg regarding electric buses. The City of Winnipeg's involved, as is Winnipeg Transit and New Flyer Industries. They're doing a pilot project, having four all-electric buses that will be part of an ongoing route in Winnipeg in their natural environment there. Those are all great news stories that I was very happy to be part of on Friday.

One thing that came up in your presentation, which Ms. Minshall touched on and I wonder if you'd be able to expand on a little bit, was the new housing developments in Winnipeg and the naturalized wetlands that are surrounding a lot of these areas, with native grasses and prairie restoration areas, and how the developers were actually taking this on themselves. There's not a lot of regulation around it and no requirement to do it, but they're actually doing this going forward.

Can you comment on why, from your perspective, developers are taking this upon themselves, even though there are no legal requirements for them to do so?

[Rodney Penner]

I think there are a number of reasons they've become involved in it. Part of it could be that even within the development community, there are individuals who have an interest in nature and want to see nature in developments. Another aspect of it is the marketability of it. The landscape is actually quite attractive. A lot of birds will come to visit these naturalized wetlands, and it creates a diversity in the community.

Another aspect of it is maintenance. The installation of the native prairie grassland and the naturalized wetlands is comparable to laying down sod and creating what we'd call a normal manicured environment, but down the road the maintenance costs are lower because we have to do less management activity to a native grassland that's installed correctly than we would in mowing turf.

There are a number of benefits, and the idea that developers want to do something good for the environment can't be ignored either.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

On the naturalized wetlands, you were talking about the benefit also to Lake Winnipeg. Naturalized wetlands are now part of almost any new development. They're able to take up and retain excess moisture in the spring, and it can be moved out after it's gone through the wetlands process of remediation, if need be.

Can you speak to how that could have an impact on Lake Winnipeg over the coming years?

[Rodney Penner]

Well, in the drainage that's coming off the land in Winnipeg, the amount of nutrients coming to Lake Winnipeg will be a relatively minor proportion from land drainage in the city.

However, when you have a naturalized wetland, a lot of nutrients are being filtered out at that stage. They're being taken up into the plants. The retention that's going there is actually removing nutrients. In terms of Winnipeg alone it's probably a small impact, but if it is translated to a larger landscape, it could be significant.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I know I'm almost out of time, but Ms. Minshall, maybe you can also elaborate. You made the comment during Mr. Woodworth's time that a lot of this happens not under regulation but under collaboration. Maybe you could expand very quickly on how successful that has been as well as why it's been successful.