Evidence of meeting #71 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was manitoba.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Let me clarify something for all of the witnesses. You may need translation, or maybe you're totally bilingual. If you are, fine, but Mr. Pilon will probably be asking his question in French.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you to all the witnesses.
I would like to ask Ms. Barrett a question first.
Your website indicates that Conservation Halton's watershed is made up of rich wetlands. During the committee's last meeting, one of the witnesses told us that it takes years for destroyed wetlands to regenerate naturally. We know that these wetlands are also very rich because of the biodiversity that can be found there.
When we talk about habitat conservation, do you think that wetland conservation should be a priority in the conservation plan?
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
Yes, I do believe that wetland conservation should be a priority. There are a number of species that depend on wetlands for all or a portion of their life cycles—amphibians, ducks, insects, you name it, the list goes on and on. In southern Ontario, the rate of wetland loss has been absolutely staggering. So I think it's important to focus on habitat conservation of wetlands, particularly as they also provide a lot of important ecological goods and services—filtering the water, flood attenuation, etc. You get a lot of bang for your buck by investing in wetland conservation.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Crabbe, you received 10,000 acres of land and have acquired another 50,000 for habitat conservation efforts.
What has the outcome been? Have you achieved concrete results?
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
Is the question, do we measure the results of our habitat securement?
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
Yes we do. Every two years we do a monitoring on our properties to see how effective they are. With the weather cycles here in Saskatchewan, they can.... As an example, last year, it was a very dry year and, obviously, you've probably heard that this year is going to be a good year for building arks in our province. So we do it every two years to try to get an understanding on how those properties are providing for biodiversity and species at risk.
NDP
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
Actually, they're excellent. We're very happy with the “building into our landscape” model that we've started here with the Go Green process, and we'll actually be monitoring our lands every year for the next few years. But initially we're very, very excited about the abilities or the functions that these properties are creating.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you.
I will go back to Ms. Barrett.
You website states that the protected conservation lands in the watershed are a significant natural heritage that needs to be protected for future generations to enjoy.
In the last two committee meetings, at least two First Nations groups basically made the same points, not just about protecting land, but also about how to develop natural resources, with a goal of having the development process done in a way that ensures the continued existence of forested areas, natural resources, and the fish and wildlife found there.
Do you think a habitat conservation plan must try to attain those goals to be truly effective?
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
I would answer that question by talking about the way we do land use planning in southern Ontario.
Typically, municipalities will require the preparation of a subwatershed study. That's a broad-based idea that looks at multiple aspects of the landscape—terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, topography, geology—and it's a multi-disciplinary study that combines all of the ecology disciplines with engineering, looking at servicing and taking an ecosystem approach to planning the best possible use for those lands.
Ideally, the process works by setting aside a natural heritage system, identifying core areas that provide key habitat for species, and ensuring that the system is connected in such a way that once an area urbanizes those natural connections remain. Once the natural heritage system is identified, we can move forward with options for development of the lands.
At a local level, we already are stepping back and taking an ecosystem approach to land use planning.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
My next question is for Dr. Mooers.
As a biology expert, what do you think the most effective means of conserving habitats are?
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Bonjour.
I think you've heard about the most effective means for conserving land. You need regulation, you need buy-in, you need flexibility—you need all these things.
As a biologist, I think you have to measure the outcome and you need to have a backstop of regulation. Those are the two main things, I would say.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
You just mentioned regulations, and I would like to know how you think the federal government could improve measures to conserve Canada's habitats.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I think my opening statement was quite clear, that without the effective implementation of endangered species legislation, SARA, we will not achieve the goal your committee has set, which is to meet CBD targets, Aichi targets that show proper stewardship of biodiversity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Pilon.
We'll move now to Mr. Woodworth for seven minutes.
Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses. The subject at hand is very complicated and endlessly fascinating.
I'd first like to direct some questions to Ms. Barrett. Being from the neck of the woods I hail from, I want to tell you that I'm very much a fan of what the Grand River Conservation Authority does there. I believe they are really a world-leading organization in the conservation of habitat, right in the middle of an extremely metropolitan area. I'm sure your organization does comparable work, and so I want to thank you for that.
I want to ask you about the Environment Canada publication mentioned in your submission, How Much Habitat is Enough?, because it responds to our question (b), about what publicly available knowledge and expertise exists. I've already taken too much time, so I want to ask you, if you could, to concisely describe for me what Environment Canada does in that publication.
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
The original publication came out in 1998. It was initially targeted to the Great Lakes areas of concern. It laid out specific targets for things such as forest cover, the percentage of stream length that's naturally vegetated, the percentage of wetland cover—those types of targets. The idea was that if you achieved those targets for coverage of different habitat types, you would maintain the full suite of biodiversity in those areas.
The guidelines were updated in the early 2000s. The most recent version came out just a few weeks ago, in fact; they've been updated through three editions.
As we use them, when we're doing watershed planning we look at those guidelines to think about what kinds of targets we should be looking at when doing restoration work. These guidelines have been really well received.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Does it also provide any monitoring or scientific guidance as to measures that might be undertaken to achieve those targets?
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
It's essentially a literature review of best practices that outlines different case studies: where those percentages have been achieved, what kind of biodiversity you can expect.
There are a few caveats. The guidelines are focused on populations that are of interest to the federal government—migratory birds and those types of things. But there are some good nuggets in there for wildlife that is under provincial jurisdiction as well—reptiles and amphibians, those kinds of things.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Excellent. I see that you describe this as an extremely valuable resource, and I'm always glad when the government, and particularly Environment Canada, gets that kind of recognition and credit.
I want to next ask you about conservation agreements, which as nearly as I can see are called in the Ontario legislation “stewardship agreements”. Am I on the right track in equating those?
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
I think they're called different things, depending upon which organization you're dealing with.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In particular, I notice that the Ontario legislation, in subsection 16(3), indicates that those agreements “may authorize a party...to engage in an activity...that would otherwise be prohibited...”.
When I was hearing your comment about “prescriptive” and “management” and “best practices” reinforcing each other, I thought of that and I wanted to ask you: do you think that the ability to be exempted from a prohibition would encourage private stakeholders to enter into stewardship agreements?
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
It might, if they were to have the flexibility to do things differently. Flexibility can be somewhat a double-edged sword, because on the one hand you don't want to be locked into being required to manage your property in a prescribed way. I gave the example of grassland species. Grasslands used to be considered areas that were woefully in need of being planted for forests, but now those habitat types have come to be appreciated for conservation values in their own right.
So it's a bit of a double-edged sword. It's certainly more attractive to the landowner, I would think, to maintain a bit of flexibility. On the other hand, if the habitat values that were meant initially to apply are still relevant, you wouldn't want those values to be changed. It's a double-edged sword.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
It is a situation-specific case, but what I wanted to get to is that the federal Species at Risk Act does not contain an equivalent provision that would allow someone to be exempted, if they entered into a conservation agreement; the federal legislation is lacking that incentive. I wonder whether you would agree with me that it might be a useful improvement to the federal Species at Risk Act, if we were to provide the incentive to enter into a conservation agreement, to permit some exemptions from prohibitions where it was suitable to do so.