Environment Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Ian Davidson]

Absolutely.

As I mentioned, there are about 350 local naturalist groups across Canada. They're found in every urban centre, big and small. They are active volunteers who meet on a regular basis, and they're involved in many aspects of habitat and wildlife species conservation.

Tonight I'm supposed to go to the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, which is a meeting of about 50 or 60 individuals who are knowledgeable of nature in and around the Ottawa environment. They engage people to talk about habitat conservation. They work with young people; they work with municipalities. These are really active people.

I think that's another aspect of the NCP that we need to think about, and that's how we engage the large volunteer network of naturalists and naturalist organizations across this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Pilon.

Mr. Woodworth, for five minutes, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all of the witnesses for their time and attendance here today.

I will preface my remarks briefly by saying that in the last Parliament I was a member of this committee and we spent many meetings and listened to many witnesses in the study and review of the Species at Risk Act. I take very, very strong exception to the notion that the act does not need reform. In point of fact, the architecture of that act, the structure of it, often impedes the protection of species at risk—in my opinion anyway, having listened to all of those witnesses. But unfortunately, that's not the subject I want to deal with today.

I do want to ask Mr. Davidson about the concept you raised of no further net loss in habitat, which I haven't thought about very much before. First of all, I want to ask for a distinction, if it exists. Are you speaking only of critical habitat, or are you speaking of habitat generally?

[Ian Davidson]

I'm talking about habitat generally.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. And are you speaking about the territory of Canada as a whole, or are you speaking of only subdivisions within it?

[Ian Davidson]

I'm talking about Canada as a whole.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. I am thinking, for example, of a hydro-electric project on a waterway. It could be the case that it will destroy some fish habitat and that they will replace that elsewhere to compensate, but in doing so will destroy terrestrial habitat. So there would still be a net loss of habitat. Am I interpreting that correctly, or is there a flaw in my thinking?

[Stephen Hazell]

Perhaps I could take this. So far, in terms of how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans applies the no net loss policy—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm not asking about the DFO. I'm saying that if we take the new principle that's being proposed, that there should be no net loss of habitat whatsoever, then moving a pond from its natural location to install it in a new location will result in the loss of terrestrial habitat. It seems to me that this would mean that development could not occur because no matter what we do, if we put a hydro-electric project in somewhere, it's going to displace natural habitat. If we're looking at the entire territory of Canada, there's no place for that habitat to go where it won't destroy other habitat. So what am I missing?

[Stephen Hazell]

I'm not sure we can immediately jump to the conclusion that there is going to be a net loss. I think what has to happen is that whatever government agency is involved.... And there is a problem constitutionally here, in that the federal government has responsibility for fish and the provinces, generally speaking, have most of the responsibility for wildlife conservation—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm only talking about loss of habitat, not jurisdiction.

[Stephen Hazell]

Yes, I know. I appreciate that. The idea is how you actually achieve it. I think we have to recognize that when you start into a negotiation and into discussions, if you had that principle of no net loss, you go into the discussions with the developer knowing this is basically what we're looking at, so how do we get there? It's amazing how clever the engineers can be.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Let me put it in a more personal way. I come from southern Ontario. I've traipsed around southern Ontario quite a bit and can tell you that there's not an inch of land in southern Ontario that is a lifeless desert. Every inch of the land in southern Ontario is a habitat for something, whether it's flora or fauna, insects, you name it. If I were able to dictate a policy of no net loss of habitat in southern Ontario, it would in effect freeze that existing habitat altogether, would it not?

[Stephen Hazell]

I don't see why it would. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was able to fairly successfully implement its policy for over 20 years—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, by destroying terrestrial habit and replacing it with marine habitat, or water habitat. But in southern Ontario, if I put a building up or a sidewalk up over a habitat, there's no place I can move that habitat without destroying some other habitat. There's going to be a net loss no matter what. I simply can't see how the notion of a no net loss in habitat can work.

I can see a no net loss in critical habitat, which is why I prefaced my remarks with that question, but no matter what I do in southern Ontario, any human development—short of going straight up—is going to result in a net loss of habitat, isn't it?

[Bill Wareham]

Perhaps I could speak to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You've got 30 seconds.

[Bill Wareham]

The concept as it's best applied, in my view, is that you look at the scales of habitat from a natural to an unnatural...and I'll take the Fraser delta on the west coast as an example. We have a large area in the Fraser delta that is agricultural land; it's mixed with green space, remnant wetland habitats, shrublands and foreshore habitat. In the intensive agricultural land, it is used as habitat. It's used by migratory birds, it's used as staging grounds for raptors in the winter time, so you could say that's habitat. But in the context of putting up a large greenhouse over a hundred acres, which displaces that habitat, the option for no net loss is to enhance habitat in other areas. So you take that agricultural land and you revert it to a more natural state. We know that the natural grass habitat in the Fraser delta, which accommodates over-wintering owls and raptors from across western Canada, requires that intense grass habitat to produce the mice to feed the raptors. A potato field doesn't do that; it doesn't provide the same habitat. So you're looking at trading off qualities of habitat, and the no net loss principle is about maintaining a net opportunity for quality habitat.

I think that's the way to look at that, because not all habitat is created equal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's a step in the direction I was heading with the issue of critical habitat.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think we've exhausted that one.

Linda Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to start off by thanking all three organizations for the incredible work you've done on behalf of Canadians for many decades. I hope you're able to continue to do that.

I'd like to thank Mr. Davidson for raising the issue of the shutdown of the PFRA. That was a unique, cooperative effort among federal, provincial and local governments, first nations, and most of all, farmers. I know there's been a huge outcry about that because so little of the native grasslands are left in the world. We're fortunate in Canada that we've had some of them. I know that there's grave concern that by doing that, those areas will be severely threatened.

Second, we have the Mackenzie River Basin agreement. Historically, in Canada, both Liberal and Conservative governments have put in place very useful mechanisms for cooperation such as the Mackenzie River Basin agreement between first nations, both levels of governments, and scientists. Yet there has not been one stitch of work there given the potential, and now documented, impact of the oil sands on the whole basin.

The third one, as many of you have mentioned, is SARA. Regrettably, many grassroots organizations have had to shift from doing their important work on the ground to taking the federal government to court for its refusal to obey the simple timelines to deliver on critical habitat.

Could you respond to this question: do you think the direction that we're going in the country is a result of a lack of political will, or do you think there is simply a dearth of resources to move forward? Or do you think that the increasing lack of respect for science is more important? What is the main reason that we seem to be going in a direction of not delivering on the critical mechanisms that were put in place by previous governments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Who wants to respond to that?

Were you directing it to a particular witness?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's to anybody who would like to respond to that.

[Bill Wareham]

I'd like to take a shot at that.

At a social-psychological level here in Canada there's an air of fear that somehow we won't maintain our economic wealth, prosperity, and activity in the country if we protect too much land, in that it will reduce the opportunity for industry to move across the landscape as it needs to. It's a false fear because as we have heard many times—and it's in much of the literature—we have the ability to find the balance between development, conservation, and maintaining the environmental quality of our air and water. Remarkably, we continue not to do that, which I believe is out of that need to try to maintain maximum economic opportunity in the short term. Unless that lens changes and we really accept that we can be okay and can invest in a longer-term future with longer-term strategies, then we'll continue to lose this habitat in the face of that short-term economic priority. It's really about putting more emphasis on the long-term benefits of that habitat conservation. That needs to be profiled and sold more to the public, to industry, and across the country.