Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[Lorrie Minshall]

We have a culture of collaboration. It has developed over the last 40 years, I would say.

Right now we are working with the provincial and federal agencies and the municipalities on a water management plan, which is all around waste water, water supply infrastructure, and that sort of thing, and how we are going to get a healthy river out of this.

We're working also at other scales. We've been working with the farm community all over the watershed--I think that's something like 4,000 farms--on the rural water quality program. We actually offer on-the-ground technical assistance to help them piece all the different programs together. It has been a very positive program, and over time relationships have been built.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Monsieur Choquette, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for Mr. Penner. In 2007, you developed a strategy and a policy for ecologically significant natural lands called

the ecologically significant natural lands strategy and policy.

Could you tell us which elements of that policy could be useful for urban conservation, in your view? Among other things, I am thinking of your idea of no-net-loss and of putting a value on trees. What could be included in an urban conservation plan? What would your recommendations be?

[Rodney Penner]

Aspects of our ecologically significant natural lands strategy and policy have been incredibly valuable in looking at nature and trying to assess which are the highest-quality areas, which are the ones most in need of being preserved, and trying to plan in relation to that so that those areas aren't being destroyed.

The tree removal guideline for the city is separate from that plan. I think the two of them would work well together if an area does have to be destroyed. We can put a real value on it so that we don't actually lose that habitat integrity within the urban environment.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have spoken with other environmentalists. We have to put a value on wetlands, for example, on trees and on other natural features. Some people share that idea. The heart says that we should not do that, but there is also the head. More and more environmentalists are of the opinion that we have to put a value on things, otherwise we are going to lose them all. There is more thought about natural environments.

For our report, would you recommend putting a value on those environments?

[Rodney Penner]

A lot of times at a local level these no-net-loss guidelines and actually putting a value on natural capital can work.

The tree removal guideline is a relatively simple formula. We know what it costs to plant a tree and, depending on the size of the tree that has to be removed, that can multiply the number of trees that you have to replace.

If somebody is going to do damage to a park, we look at what it would cost to repair in terms of planting all that biodiversity again and come up with a value that will make the high-quality natural areas almost astronomical in value.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have another question for you. It has to do with your suggestion to have funding plans. Presently, funding for projects is short term. You say that one and two years is not going to be enough. What duration of funding would you recommend to this committee?

[Rodney Penner]

For a prairie restoration project, we know that the restoration companies that do really high-quality work will work on the project for four to five years. If there were four- to five-year projects, I think that would be a good start.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have the time for one question to Mr. Kent.

The national conservation plan already mentions Aichi targets, such as 17% of terrestrial spaces and 10% of coastal areas by 2020. Unfortunately, the report on the plan uses the words “should” or “could”—I do not recall exactly. Basically, we do not have a clear position.

Would you recommend going over the report again and taking a clear position on the targets we must reach? Otherwise, we just have “should” or “could”. That is just wishful thinking and nothing will be done.

[Oliver Kent]

We believe that the figures are much too modest. We must recognize that we have to aim much higher than that. In the long term, we should be thinking about conserving half of our public lands. In fact, that is what we find in Quebec's Plan Nord.

but it affects Ontario as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Ms. Ambler, you have five minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all three of you for being here today.

I'd like to continue along Monsieur Choquette's second line of questioning with regard to local-level habitat banking and the use of the no-net-loss guideline.

Mr. Penner, I'd like to know a bit more about how this process works in practice on the ground, because I think that local-level habitat banking, or habitat banking of all kinds, is just generally a great idea. You've mentioned that it was used numerous times. You gave the example of the tree removal guidelines. I assume this means that if someone is digging up an old tree, they have to plant x number of new ones somewhere else. I'm wondering, first of all, if that's the only use for local-level habitat banking in Winnipeg or if there are other examples you could give us.

Also, I'm wondering if you can see urban areas like Winnipeg or other areas benefiting when natural areas further away are being damaged and the project proponents, the industry or the people doing the damage, want to or have to remediate elsewhere. Can you see urban centres benefiting from that type of habitat banking? It would not be just local, but a little bit further away, and then there's benefiting in urban areas.

[Rodney Penner]

I would start by saying that the concept of habitat banking isn't very well developed at this stage. I think it needs a lot of work.

What we're doing right now in the city is really an uncomplicated, low-level form of habitat banking. We're looking at specific quantities being destroyed for a construction project and that construction project being charged to do replacement. It's as simple as this: if they have to destroy a turf area, they would have to replace it with turf, and if they destroy a natural area, they'd replace it with a natural area.

If habitat banking were put together well, I think urban areas could benefit, depending on how the formulas are all put together, because there are a lot of things that need to be taken into account.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sure. In fact, I think one of the considerations—and maybe you can let me know if you agree—is to base the habitat conservation banking in real property value rather than some very subjective evaluations of projects and their value.

I've done a bit of research on it. In the U.S., in Australia, and in a number of countries in Europe, the concept has evolved much more than it has in Canada. It's based in real property, and real land values are considered. Do you think this is something that we could explore to the benefit of urban conservation here in Canada?

[Rodney Penner]

I think it's something that deserves exploration and consideration. Obviously, what the value should be depends on the situation. Is it only the vegetation, or is it the actual land being removed in one way or another? That is part of the consideration.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Kent, I find it very interesting that you have a lot of experience in the private sector. As an economist and a consultant in this area, how do you think we can better engage private sector organizations in conservation? How can they help us to create natural areas and to promote conservation among urban Canadians?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have to answer in about 15 seconds.

[Oliver Kent]

Well, in 15 seconds I would say that the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement is a very interesting pilot project in that context, and we need to take that concept to other industries.

I'd love to see the mining industry step up the way the forest industry did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Leslie, you have five minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses. We're certainly learning a lot here.

Ms. Minshall, you mentioned this a bit in your brief, and others have touched on it. A couple of days ago we had the City of Calgary here, and they were really explicit about one possible solution—making conservation part of urban infrastructure funding. That way, we could leverage the tripartite funding that's out there and include conservation projects in it and recognize that urban conservation could be considered infrastructure in our municipalities.

Has the City of Winnipeg found that to be something lacking, or do you think that is something that would work to help secure urban space or to secure funding for urban projects?

I’ll ask Mr. Penner, from the City of Winnipeg.

[Rodney Penner]

In terms of securing funding, we've worked a lot of times with various community partnerships in applying for funding. The partnership types of agreements we have and the groups we work with have been incredible. We couldn't do it if it weren't community-based. We wouldn't be able to get the type of funding for projects, and we wouldn't have the capacity to do a lot of the projects we do.

I think a lot has to do with cooperation among various levels of government and the individuals on the ground.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

The problem is that funding is available through Environment Canada, through Parks Canada, and that's it, but there's nothing preventing us from having conservation as a part of other departments.

Ms. Minshall and Mr. Kent, would something that specific in the infrastructure funding help with the work you're doing?

[Lorrie Minshall]

There were two big examples we were thinking about when we did that. I think they were just on the borderline of connection here with urban conservation, but I think one could take it a step further.

As an example, we were looking at restoration activities in the Grand River itself, in order to improve assimilation of waste water rather than put massive amounts of money into another waste water upgrade that's really already at the limit of technology. That would be an example of using blue-green infrastructure instead of grey infrastructure.

The other example is that there's a big movement now towards integrating urban stormwater management with waste water management and water supply planning, linking them together around water reuse and what water is appropriate for what use, but I'm not sure our infrastructure funding programs go as far as to allow that kind of innovation.

You can imagine that in urban areas, especially now that they are all doing stormwater master plans to deal with their biggest problems instead of their site problems, there would be green and blue infrastructure needs serving both purposes here. It can be integrated together, but not in silos, as you say.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

[Oliver Kent]

I would make a couple of comments.

One is that I think the idea of funding restoration projects as infrastructure is an intriguing one. I can't say that we have a public position on it, but I think it's a very interesting idea. Many restoration projects are quite labour-intensive, so if you're funding infrastructure partly as an economic stabilization activity, it makes a lot of sense on the face of it.

The other comment I would make is that one of the key points about infrastructure—not necessarily infrastructure that's created for environmental reasons, but the potential impacts to infrastructure—is the whole question of connectedness. If you put in an expressway, you're severing existing relationships on the landscape. It's very important that the design of those kinds of facilities be such that those connections are in fact maintained and that there are underpasses, overpasses, whatever, so that species of all kinds, including the human species, can cross these barriers.