Environment Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

[Guy Garand]

I think the Government of Canada should become a leader in this respect by trying to prepare management plans and working with the municipalities.

A little earlier, Ms. Smith said that there is great need in the urban and urban fringe areas. She spoke about the emerald ash borer and the loss of trees in her area. I think most of the municipalities are having problems with that. Montreal has the same problem. That is because the cities have injected millions and millions of dollars into what we call "monoculture". It would be better if there was greater biodiversity. The insect, the emerald ash borer, does not attack maple trees or elms. There have been other diseases, like Dutch elm disease. Every plant species in the urban environment that can help fight climate change is attached by an insect, a parasite or a fungus. So when we develop monocultures in cities, we have to expect a shock wave, expect to lose our plants and our forest canopy. We are doing a lot of work on that.

The other problem is infrastructure. Nobody ever asks developers how much the environmental impact of commercial, industrial or residential development costs, but we always wonder how much it costs not to develop natural environments. When we develop in the regions, any region of Canada, we put up malls, we put up power centres far from everything that require people to get there by car. We forget to ask developers to keep the land or give land. But they are legally required to do so for school, cultural and leisure infrastructures.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I'll stop you there for a moment. In this case, do you have any advice for the federal government about getting involved in a concrete way? Are there any measure you would suggest? Should there be standards? How could the federal government encourage—

[Guy Garand]

The federal government should inject funds in the municipalities or RCMs in Canada that are development models of local services. That would be the first thing to do. We should stop developing cities the way we are. Services are far away. People have to drive to get where they need to go. Our cities are built around the automobile. That is useful in some way, but we can make local service models.

We spoke about six storeys. I think buildings should never be higher than four storeys because they are less expensive to air-condition, and we would be respecting the tree canopy and the height of trees that offer different and mild climatic cover. Also, in the northern countries, trees cut the wind in winter. It also decreases energy use.

I am looking at cities like Montreal, which I know very well, or Toronto. I'm looking at Ottawa, which I think is quite a beautiful city. When we open the streets to rebuild infrastructures, why do we always make very wide streets and boulevards? Why not bring it back down to a more human scale?

Take for example Saint-Denis Street in Montreal, which is 14 km long. Take away one lane of traffic and put in some greenery. When you go to redo the storm sewers, you will use much less expensive pipes. You will save some money. You will be able to plant trees and better manage rain and precipitation. There will be a percolation of water in the ground, a decrease in greenhouse gases and, as a result, a drop in climate change. The temperature will be milder in the winter and in the summer. The natural environments are there to be integrated.

If the Government of Canada wanted to do something, it should fund projects that truly are green and well adapted to society and to city dwellers in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Merci.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes.

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

I was fascinated to hear the witnesses, I think to a person, talk about the value of wetlands. I represent a rural prairie constituency, and wetlands have been disappearing at a rapid rate.

Ms. Ceschi-Smith, you were talking about the green municipal fund regarding infrastructure.

We know the value of wetlands in terms of doing certain things such as filtering water, flood prevention, and so on. Mr. Dion, as a watershed expert, would it be wise for us to consider support for natural infrastructure, like wetlands for example, as part of the green municipal fund?

[Ken Dion]

Thank you for that.

It's funny that you should ask this question. At TRCA right now we're doing a strategic review of where we're going with our own agency, and a major focus is further enhancements within our green infrastructure within our jurisdiction.

Traditionally, green infrastructure referred to bioswales or stormwater ponds, but this is much further beyond what we're looking at now. It's actually trying to be strategic in the protection of wetlands, where they exist, trying to actually create natural wetlands rather than stormwater ponds. It's not only for enhancement but, as I alluded to earlier, it really is protecting what is there and building onto that.

Going directly to your question, there's a lot of value in including some sort of funding scenario in support of providing the space necessary to get into the establishment of these infrastructure components.

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

I might get into trouble for what I'm about to say, but I think there are way too many engineers involved in these kinds of things and not enough ecologists. I can see that some of the members agree with me.

On the notion of green, we need to look at what nature does, not quite for free, but I think you know where I'm coming from. A study was done in my constituency by Ducks Unlimited in a place called Broughton’s Creek that quantified the values of wetlands. I recommend that you look at this.

Mr. Dion, in terms of the watershed work that you do, ultimately that whole area, everything drains into Lake Ontario. What have been the trends in water quality in Lake Ontario over the last 20 or 25 years?

[Ken Dion]

You'd be surprised. It's actually improving somewhat.

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

I actually expected that answer.

[Ken Dion]

Ironically, it also has a lot to do with some of the invasives that are coming into the lake.

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

Yes.

[Ken Dion]

There is a contribution as better management practices in the urban settings. The problem is there's still a lot of intensification, a lot of development. With the improved management practices, it is not keeping up with the growth that occurs.

Trying to localize development areas, rather than broad sprawl, and then continued improvement of protecting key areas within the drainage basins for the Great Lakes would go a long way to try to offset that.

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

One of my concerns, as a rural MP, is building a relationship between rural Canada and urban Canada. Mr. Dion, are you familiar with the New York City watershed project?

[Ken Dion]

No, I'm not.

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

New York City was mandated to improve water quality within the city, and they decided to take a watershed approach. They funded agricultural producers in the upper reaches of the watershed to change farming practices. This resulted in a significant improvement in New York City's water quality and helped the agricultural community.

Ms. Ceschi-Smith, do you think we should start thinking that way in Canada?

[Marguerite Ceschi-Smith]

Actually, we do some of that.

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

Could you elaborate? I'd be interested.

[Marguerite Ceschi-Smith]

We have the Grand River Conservation Authority, and I'm on its source water protection committee. Brantford gets 100% of its water from the Grand River. You can imagine the kind of treatment we have to do.

We also have the rural water quality program, in which the municipality puts some money in and so does the country. It was instituted to help agriculture practices.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Monsieur Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. This is very interesting, and you are very passionate.

We started with a national conservation plan. We then had a tour of Canada. We were, in fact, able to see the damage caused by urban sprawl, in particular.

I was at the Forum québécois sur l'énergie last year, in Shawinigan. My questions are for the CRE Laval and will concern that event.

When we developed the national conservation plan, we insisted that the Aichi targets, so 17% for land areas and 10% for marine areas, be written into the plan. Unfortunately, we are saying that these targets are something we "should" achieve and not something the conservation plan must achieve.

Do you think these targets would be a good start for a national conservation plan and an urban conservation plan?

[Guy Garand]

The 17% Nagoya objective is part of an international agreement through the United Nations program. However, I would suggest you go and consult the Environment Canada site. In 2004, the Government of Canada stated—and scientists are saying this, as well—that we need to maintain 30% of vegetation cover to conserve biodiversity. The 17% objective is a step in the right direction, but the Montreal metropolitan community ratified its metropolitan land use and development plan and is planning to have a 30% canopy by 2031. So we are talking about scientific objectives. It's serious.

Before going any further, I want to point out that I gave the clerk five copies of this document, which is only in French, unfortunately. You can read about the history of the last 20 years, from 1985 to 2005, of the loss of natural environments, the agricultural area and the correlation between the heat island, health, and so on. Everything is in that big report.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Garand.

We attended a good number of talks at the Forum québécois sur l'énergie. One of them was about urban sprawl and the importance of reviewing the structures in our cities. As you mentioned, our cities are designed for cars. That's the case in Drummondville, where I live. We need to review this. Olivia Chow introduced a bill on establishing a national public transit strategy.

Do you think that would be a good first step toward limiting urban sprawl and reviewing how our cities are structured?

[Guy Garand]

It is definitely a step in the right direction. The 16 regional councils mandated by the Government of Quebec are drawing up an energy diagnostic that also deals with greenhouse gases. Regional tables have also been created in all regions of Quebec to create viable development plans that respect the capacity to support ecosystems while fighting urban sprawl and climate change. First and foremost, we need to move toward being independent from gas and see if we can strengthen that independence in Quebec in the next 20 or 25 years.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Garand, after the Forum québécois sur l'énergie, I was sort of flabbergasted by the extent of urban sprawl and how quickly it was spreading. The municipality of Drummondville is making serious efforts to grow the city. It's going very well; it's growth is incredible. But this is the old development model. What should we review?

Could the government adopt a national strategy to review urban planning? Right now, we are still talking about low density and many big stores, as mentioned earlier. The downtown is not very developed. There is more and more development along Highway 20, and we are forgetting the rest of the city.

Do you think the federal government should take this initiative? There are cities across Canada and, as we saw during our tour, this problem affects the entire country.