Environment Committee on April 23rd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Your time is up, but we'll give Ms. Woodley 45 seconds or so to answer.

[Alison Woodley]

I think there are a couple of ways. Certainly, the federal government has some jurisdiction in some areas of the country. For example, in the Northwest Territories, the federal government has some responsibility for land use planning itself. So in those cases, directly supporting and participating in those land use planning exercises and supporting the technical analysis, etc., is really important.

Across the country, in areas of provincial jurisdiction, for example, I think the federal government could play an important role in providing technical expertise and support and land analysis. The government has that kind of expertise and capacity and could support land use planning in that way, and also in facilitating and supporting the participation of stakeholders, indigenous peoples, and various groups, and enabling people to come to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Ms. Woodley.

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We'll move now to Monsieur Pilon.

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

My question is for Ms. King.

In your presentation, you talked at length about oil sands. I would like to know whether you think there is a way to develop oil sands while preserving your ancestral rights.

[Lisa King]

I'm sure there is a way. Chief Adam has always said he's not against development. He's in support of responsible development.

I'm surprised that over the years I haven't seen a whole lot of changes in how the oil is developed. They've been using the same technologies for over 50 years. Why aren't we using new technologies? Why do we still need to use so much water from the Athabasca River?

There have been changes in the emissions. There are less emissions coming out. There are less coming out of the stacks, so that has improved, but we can always improve. There is always technology to improve how development is done.

The other thing I would suggest has to do with the pace. We worked really hard with Shell to support their project. Right after the hearing was done, two months later they announced another brand new project.

Why do we need to dig it all up right now? Why can't we simply sustain digging out this oil over the years? Why do we need to dig a bunch of big holes in the ground all over our land right now? Let's finish this hole, clean it up, and then go to the next hole and clean that up. That's a key thing, doing it responsibly, doing it over time so our way of life isn't changed. That would be huge.

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

My next question is for Mr. Innes, and no one here will be surprised that it is about wetlands.

You said in your presentation that there were many cases of wetland destruction in your neck of the woods. Have you ever noted any concrete effects of wetland destruction on water levels in the surrounding rivers and lakes?

[Larry Innes]

We are, and it's important when we talk about the boreal forest in the Athabasca region to realize that “forest” is perhaps a misnomer. Actually, 60% of the Athabasca region is wetlands, all contained within a forested matrix.

What results from disturbance of these wetlands is that they dry and then they convert. This can be caused by some fairly low-impact activities, like the cutting of a seismic line or the installation of drainage. When they convert, that water storage and carbon storage is significantly diminished.

What we've seen throughout the region—and I have a couple of statistics here—is that the loss of wetlands is accelerating. More than 28,000 hectares have been slated for development.

What scientists, including eminent scientists like Dr. David Schindler, have suggested is that this will have irreversible effects, not just on water levels, but also on the quality of water within the region.

We're now at the point at which the pace is accelerating. When we look at the watershed as a whole, from the entire Athabasca extending north into the Mackenzie, there is a significant amount of concern being expressed that the cumulative effects of both development within the region and the increases of temperature expected under climate change may result in some very significant and adverse impacts on that very important ecosystem within the Athabasca.

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

My next question is for Mr. Bonnett.

There are still a few farms left in my region. Right now, in April, birds are feeding on the leftovers of last year's crops. However, as soon as farmers start planting their seeds, they will set up noise-making canons to prevent the birds from eating the seeds. Do you see this as an environmentally responsible method, or are there other ways for farmers to prevent birds from eating their seeds?

[Ron Bonnett]

I think you have to understand that some of these birds look at the farmers' fields as very easy to get at and free food. In a natural habitat, they would be foraging somewhere else. I think one of the things we've seen develop over the years is that the wildlife have become very adapted to finding an easy and cheap food source, and farmers' fields are that source. Putting things like cannons in place is not designed to harm the birds; it's designed to move them to a more natural habitat to do the feeding. Maybe the birds are a little bit like us. They're sometimes a little bit lazy to go and work for their food. The cannons are only designed to move them there.

I can actually give you a concrete example on our own farm. Thirty years ago, we had very few sandhill cranes in our area. You might have seen one or two. Now there will be thousands and thousands of them that come. One of the big challenges we have now is when we plant corn. When the corn comes out of the ground this far, they don't just snip it off; they pull it out by the roots, and they'll just walk right down the rows. But if you put the cannons in and chase them off, they'll go into the wetlands and other areas and find their food there. It's just a matter of recognizing that it's the economic value that has to be considered on the agricultural side, that there are times when we have to move those species someplace else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Bonnett, and thank you, Monsieur Pilon.

We'll move now to Mr. Storseth for five minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming today. It's been very interesting, actually.

I'd like to ask Ms. King a couple of questions, and then I'll move over to Mr. Bonnett.

Some of the things you're talking about are increased monitoring programs, increased use of world-class technology—we should be using the best technology in the world to monitor some of these things—and more transparency when it comes to the monitoring programs.

You'd agree with all of those statements?

[Lisa King]

Yes. Years ago there was a program called RAMP, the regional aquatics monitoring program. We were a part of it. We sat at the table with the groups—industry was there, government was there, and first nations were there. We had to pull ourselves away from the group because we found that it was largely led by industry. Even though we were at the table, our voice was so small we weren't being heard or listened to. It felt like it was industry-led monitoring. I would sit there and tell industry, you guys are just monitoring yourselves; the fox is taking care of the henhouse here.

Just two years ago, I believe, that whole program was replaced by that world-class monitoring program. You had to really expose what was going on. They weren't monitoring correctly.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

When we're talking about technologies, in the area that I represent around Cold Lake and the Cold Lake oil sands, it's predominantly in situ, which is a technology advancement that doesn't leave big holes in the ground, as you said, nor the environmental impact. But I was curious when you were talking about thresholds. I just want to get a feeling on this. For instance, some of the problems with the caribou are due to the fact that their breeding patterns are sluggish, compared to other animals, when there are large wolf uptakes in the population. When we're talking about monitoring thresholds, are we also talking about decreasing the amount of hunting if things start to...? That could be a use of technology, where in the past we wouldn't even necessarily know that there was a decrease in population numbers. Would we also be looking at decreasing the hunting and consumption from first nations as well?

[Lisa King]

We've done that in the past during fur trading. You would only harvest the furs in certain areas. You'd let that part grow and you'd harvest the furs from a different area. We've always done that.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Excellent.

I have one last question for you. I've got several first nations communities that are developing. They have oil companies. They're worth $100 million. What about those communities that choose to develop their land in that capacity? That surely can't be a breach of the treaty rights if it's their own decision to develop it, is it?

[Lisa King]

Fort McKay First Nation was looking at doing that. It would be good to have McKay speak on that.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

But you would agree that it should be their decision?

[Lisa King]

Yes. They did propose that I think about three years ago with Shell, and then they withdrew it from the application, and I'm not sure what happened.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you. I'd be happy to follow up after. I do have to ask Mr. Bonnett a couple of questions.

We heard from some of the witnesses last week that there should be increased regulations on private property owners, particularly farmers. Could you give me your thoughts on that?

There's also been what I would consider a misconception. As somebody who actually owns agricultural land, I know there's often talk of the old railway lines, which used to go through that now are no longer used for railways, as being prime preserve for habitat. But in fact my experience with those lands, at least in our areas, has been that those were areas that were highly contaminated before and really have no use as agricultural land. Would you agree with that?

What do you think of increased regulations on agricultural producers and the response we would get from agricultural producers?

[Ron Bonnett]

First of all, the normal response from agriculture producers when regulations are introduced is usually a bit of pushback.

I can see the role of regulations as the last ditch effort, but it shouldn't be the first response. The first response should be trying to clearly identify what it is you want to protect and what needs to be done to do it, and then try to put programs in place that would do that. That's where you get into some of the partnerships. Some of the biggest successes we've had have been when people have gone to the environmental farm plan. They identified things that were necessary and they utilized some of the government incentive programs to go there. That had a lot more impact on making a difference than putting regulations in place.

I remember several years ago we were working in Ontario—that's when I was the Ontario federation president—and we had a conservation official who was having a discussion. She was saying that the law says you should have a 30-metre setback from a water stream. She was saying that they could put regulations in place to do that but that she found that if she worked with farmers, they could actually get 10 metres on the ground rather than 30 metres on a book. I think that's the concept we have to take a look at: what is the outcome and how do you get there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

We move now to Mr. Toet for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today. It has been very revealing.

I want to start with a little comment to Mr. Innes. As Mr. Pilon discussed, I'm also a big fan of wetlands and the need for wetland rehabilitation. I'm sure you must be very happy with—I'd assume you are aware of—the work that some of the oil sands developers are doing with Olds College in looking at wetlands rehabilitation, at how to rehabilitate it properly, and at the role they all play. I thought it was really interesting that you brought that up. When this committee visited Olds College, I was very excited to see the work going on, and that they are also working very closely in conjunction with industry to make sure that we're doing the right things for wetlands rehabilitation, because it has to be done.

I just want to turn to Mr. Bonnett quickly. You talked about using agricultural lands, as they are a habitat area to a large degree. I witness that every day where I live. My property has bush on it, but across the road is a farmer's field, and I see constantly that it's being used by the deer, the geese, the ducks, and even the coyotes and foxes are using it as natural hunting areas. They're using the bush to live in, but they're actually using this as their feeding area.

When you see this happen on farms, is this something that farmers are actually encouraging? Is this something where they are doing things to help, or are they trying to set back some of these things going forward?

[Ron Bonnett]

There is no one direct answer for that. I think most farmers actually enjoy seeing some wildlife interacting with their landscape. I think the real issue is when it becomes an issue that goes beyond the economic threshold and they run into severe economic losses.

One of the things that we do see happening is that farmers are starting to look at ways to mitigate that. Richard mentioned the grass waterways. That does create habitat, and it doesn't actually create that much loss. In fact, in the long term, because you can use the equipment more efficiently, you would likely have a net economic benefit.

On our own farm, I've fenced back quite a piece from the water course, and I have geese and ducks and beavers swimming around in there in the summer. By putting that in place, I actually have a water source to draw on for my cattle if I get a dry season.

I think the short answer is that farmers enjoy seeing wildlife habitat, but they do need some programs in place sometimes to make sure they don't suffer huge economic losses.

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

So it just comes back to balance again.

[Ron Bonnett]

It goes back to that whole thing of balance.