Environment Committee on April 23rd, 2013

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

Mr. Phillips, in the example you gave us, you showed about 11% of this land left as protected on this particular area by the farmers. I got the sense that it's something we're seeing more and more of and that farmers are really working towards this. I also got a sense from you that they would rather set aside larger areas than a whole bunch of smaller areas.

Is there also work amongst the farmers to cooperate and create interconnectivity between those areas so that we would be able to do some rehabilitation on those lands and bring back some of the wetlands, especially in our prairie regions, where we could use that natural sponge, so that in areas such as where I come from, in Manitoba, we're not looking at major flooding issues every year?

[Richard Phillips]

By and large, I don't think there's that much cooperation. If you just go back and look at this map here, an example of what you would be talking about is this little piece of land in the upper right-hand corner there. If you're farming the big field in this part, how do you actually get to it? Do you have to cut a path through the bush to get over to farm that little piece? Or do you get a neighbour to farm it? Or is that where the alternative land use service would be? Maybe the public should rent that little piece of land from him and just leave it there and quit trying to go through all the stuff to do all that.

When I'm talking about farmers being happy to set aside land, it is as long as we can maintain the use of our machinery and farm efficiently. I think we're happy to have a piece of that land set aside. That's the point I was trying to get at.

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

But there would be a willingness and an openness. It maybe isn't happening today, but because they're willing to set aside this land, and to do it in a cooperative manner, as you say, that actually creates the biggest impact, the most public good, so to speak, as they go forward.

[Richard Phillips]

Yes. If you could get the neighbours to cooperate in something like this, to where the land would continue on, well, then you have a wildlife corridor to move up and down, versus the next guy clearing it all off and you're the only guy left with a piece of bush.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Phillips.

Thank you, Mr. Toet.

We'll move now to Ms. Duncan for five minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Woodley, I'm going to come back for one more question. I really am focusing on evidence, because I think any decision that's taken has to be an evidence-based decision.

An important provision of SARA relates to the so-called safety net, which imposes a duty on the minister to recommend that the GIC issue a safety net order if the minister is of the view that a species on provincial crown land is not effectively protected. I'm wondering, in your view, to what extent has this provision of SARA been successful in protecting habitat on provincial lands? I know you weren't keen on giving me a scale last time, but can you give us some indication?

[Alison Woodley]

I think it's important to have. The safety net is important because it acts as a backstop to the patchwork of endangered species legislation that exists in the provinces and the territories. It enables the federal government to step in where the species are not being adequately protected at the provincial level. With the jurisdiction the federal government has over species at risk, I think that's appropriate, and it's an important part of the legislation.

Again, at my fingertips I don't have a response based on a peer-reviewed paper that kind of shows what the evidence there would be. But it's clear that it's important and has acted as an incentive for provinces to actually get their own legislation in place, for example. Having that federal role there and the ability to do that means that provinces have developed stronger legislation, in some cases, since the act has been developed. I suspect those kinds of measures are the pieces that would incent a province to act and get their own strong legislation in place.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Is there a specific recommendation you would make to this committee regarding this aspect?

[Alison Woodley]

It needs to continue to be there as part of the framework of the federal Species at Risk Act, absolutely.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. King, what would be your wish list to this committee? You were very clear in saying we have to be there, we have to be part of the decision-making. Is there something you would like to see in the report that would make your being there easier?

[Lisa King]

To better understand how the province plays a role. When we live in Alberta, we don't feel a federal presence, so implementation: How is it going to be implemented? How is Alberta going to cooperate? Or will they?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Do you have the necessary resources you need to undertake the research to be part of the discussions?

[Lisa King]

Most necessarily not, we do not have the resources. We have barely enough resources to keep up with the development that's going on, on our lands.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

To Mr. Innes or Ms. King, what would be the recommendation you would make to this committee regarding resources to support your work?

[Larry Innes]

The main objective for ACFN is to develop what we've described as this traditional lands and resource management plan that we see as the foundation for enabling the establishment of thresholds to protect treaty rights and livelihood. But it also significantly creates a framework within which government and industry, federal and provincial as well as the developers within the region, can then more effectively consult at a strategic rather than a transactional level with ACFN and other aboriginal communities.

What we face today is basically death by a thousand cuts. You're asked, in the course of your work, is this particular development okay? Oh well, what about this one? And it doesn't fit within a framework. Perhaps the most important thing for us to do is to bring that consultation and the plans and the programs that are developed to mitigate from an environmental perspective, but also to accommodate on a rights basis, into a framework that actually has measurable results against established thresholds and benchmarks. That is what is lacking in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Innes, and thank you, Ms. Duncan.

We have one and a half or one and three-quarter rounds left. I understand Mr. Sopuck and Mr. Lunney would like to speak, so if you want to share your time, that's up to you.

Mr. Sopuck, I'll turn it over to you.

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

Ms. Woodley, regarding the boreal forest, I think it's important to put some numbers around this. This is not a panel about the oil sands, but the oil sands seem to come up over and over again. The area of the oil sands is about 147,000 square kilometres in Canada. To date, between 600 and 700 square kilometres have been mined, which is a very small portion of the oil sands, and of that 600 to 700 square kilometres, about 60 have been reclaimed. So it's an ongoing process of mining and reclamation, leaving aside the quality of the reclaimed land that I would argue does have a sound ecological function built in—but we'll leave that aside for a minute.

If one looks at hydroelectric development in the boreal forest, for example, in Quebec 23,000 square kilometres of boreal forest land has been flooded. In Manitoba, where I come from, it is 8,000 square kilometres, and in Ontario it's about 7,000 square kilometres. Keep in mind that the northern boreal forest that's flooded by hydro development will never, ever be reclaimed to anything near its natural state, whereas in the oil sands it's a very minuscule area that has been mined, and it's a constant process of reclamation.

Don't you think that in terms of Canada's overall boreal forest, which I think is 10 million square kilometres, the oil sands area, from a nationwide perspective, is very, very small?

[Alison Woodley]

I would defer the comments on the impact of the oil sands to my colleagues who are living on the ground there. I think they're the ones who are understanding the significant impacts and have presented their concerns and their recommendations today.

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

Well, just before that, again to you, in the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, do the groups there recognize the impact of hydro development on Canada's boreal forest?

[Alison Woodley]

Absolutely. There's a myriad of pressures on the boreal forest from multiple sectors. It's important that we look at all of these as we look at the impacts on the boreal forest and really put all efforts in play to protect our boreal forest. We have to look at all of those impacts, not only one.

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

I'd like to ask Mr. Phillips a question now, and I'll switch gears completely to the privately owned agricultural landscape.

Given that land use on privately owned farm land is dictated by world markets, what do you see as the trends in world markets for grain in particular? What effect will the trends in grain prices worldwide and the demand for grain have on habitat conservation efforts on the privately owned agricultural landscape?

[Richard Phillips]

It's going to put a lot of pressure on it, because as grain prices remain strong and as demand remains strong, farmers are moving to maximize their farming operations.

The other piece I maybe should raise here is that a lot of farmers have retired and they've rented out their land, so you have fewer farmers, a lot of the younger farmers, and more and more acres subject to the bigger machinery.Those are the guys who want to come in and farm a minimum of a mile straight down and straight back, and that puts pressure on the landowner to clean up the land if he's going to maximize his rental income. That's what I meant when I said we may need to look at ways to move the habitat around to the margins of the land where it's not going to interfere with the commercial operations, or it'll be scrubbed off and it'll be gone.

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

I have just a minor correction, Mr. Phillips. Not all farmers are guys.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Phillips]

Yes, I stand corrected.