Environment Committee on April 25th, 2013

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

Again, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, you cannot destroy a nest of a migratory bird. However, because many migratory birds nest in prairie Canada, normal farming practices inadvertently affect nests and a fully implemented migratory bird convention would actually stop almost all prairie agriculture. These kinds of examples point to the difficulties with legislation that does not take into account what is actually happening on the landscape.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Sopuck, I'm going to need to cut you off there. Your time is up.

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

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As a non-member of this committee, I do find it an interesting conversation to move from the implementation of SARA to the difficulties of flooding in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Part of this is caused by a failure to properly manage the properties in a way that allows for the absorption of as much rainfall as possible.

To use an urban example—I'm from Scarborough—one of the reasons that we have difficulties with our floodplains is that it was thought to be really smart urban development to pave over everything and have everything run into the creeks. Now every time there's a flooding event, we have big problems instead of allowing nature to absorb the floods.

I want to actually pick up on a comment by Mr. Chorney and ask for Professor Mooers' comment on it. I was watching your reaction to Mr. Chorney's suggestion of tax relief with respect to certainly wetlands, or lands that are not usable, if you will, by farmers. You seemed to think that was a good idea, and I just wanted to get your comment on that.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

Well, I'm not an expert in international affairs. I'm also not an expert in taxation and economics, but those sorts of approaches make prima facie sense superficially because there seems to be very little red tape, very few start-up costs. When you talk to people, they seem like they're the sorts of things that people would like. As a non-professional, I think those are exactly the sorts of things that different levels of government can do quickly and effectively to increase stewardship of biodiversity in Canada.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Intuitively I think you're right.

I just want to direct a question, then, to Mr. Chorney. If this is a good idea, in effect farmers taking land out of production in order to let nature do its job, your first issue was that the program got oversubscribed quite quickly. So (a) it's an issue of funding, and (b) is there a way in which the tax relief, possibly even the transfer of some of those properties out of the farmer's name and into the crown or someone else, would actually help mitigate some of the difficulties that both Saskatchewan and Manitoba are having with flooding events?

[Doug Chorney]

I actually think there's a good example in North Dakota and Minnesota, where the Red River Basin Commission has actually implemented these kinds of ideas. They've had really good landowner cooperation. In some cases they've actually, as you suggest, acquired the properties and made them permanent water storage areas. Sometimes these are areas that were not very productive agriculturally to begin with, and it was only through rising commodity prices and economic pressures on the farm budgets that they tore these wetlands up and drained them and tried to farm them.

So given the opportunity, landowners quite often—well, in every instance they cooperated down in those jurisdictions so that they would set aside those properties permanently. Not only does it give you this opportunity to prevent flooding in the springtime but in-season excessive precipitation events can be mitigated. What they found is they actually demonstrated that they can protect a lot of the agricultural land adjacent to these projects from these major precipitation events. Because the water is stored there for a longer period of time, rather than just to prevent a flood, there's a very efficient nutrient interception.

Storing water temporarily doesn't really do much for helping save the lakes from nutrient loading, but storing it for a long term and actually deliberately growing biomass crops, even cattails—on which we're doing research here in Manitoba on how to harvest them and create a bit of a bioeconomy—will do a great deal to prevent those nutrients from getting ultimately into our freshwater lakes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McKay. Your time is up.

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

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask Dr. Mooers about some issues that concern me regarding his approach that the amendment of SARA should be off limits for at least 10 years. I wonder, Dr. Mooers, if you are familiar with the Environmental Enforcement Act that was passed two or three years ago to bring our enforcement of environmental regulations and legislation up-to-date and increase penalties and make them more effective and give judges more flexibility in things like the environmental damages fund and so on. Are you familiar with that legislation.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I am not.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I want to tell you that it was passed through this committee with gusto, even though at that time it was an opposition majority committee, and that it indeed gave greater effective opportunities for the enforcement of environmental legislation. But regrettably, it was not made to apply to the Species at Risk Act because the environment committee was studying the Species at Risk Act at that time, and no one wanted to impose on that study.

I'm wondering if I might convince you at the very least that it would be appropriate to amend the Species at Risk Act to bring its enforcement provisions up-to-date and to put them on a par with that environmental enforcement legislation that was made to apply to virtually every other environmental act in Canada, except the Species at Risk Act. Could I persuade you that we ought to immediately act to amend the Species at Risk Act in this regard?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

You won't be surprised to hear that there's no way I could comment on that without looking at the Environmental Enforcement Act and those amendments that were made to it.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

I'm beginning to get the picture that your comments are based on your acknowledged limitations of knowledge, and I appreciate that. But I want to move on to the next issue that concerns me about your proposal that we should not amend the Species at Risk Act for at least 10 years. It has to do with paragraph 41(1)(c), which requires that every recovery strategy must include an identification of a species' critical habitat.

My recollection of the evidence that I heard when this committee studied the Species at Risk Act was that this has in fact impeded the development of recovery strategy, simply because in the case of many species the identification of what is critical habitat is very difficult and requires lengthy study and scientific investigation.

Do you see the problem with the necessity to determine critical habitat? Do you understand what I'm talking about?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I think that it's impossible to create a recovery strategy without identifying critical habitat.

It does also say with the “best available information” in paragraph 41(1)(c), and I think that's what the recovery teams have been striving to do.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Are you aware of the fact that there are complaints that too much time is spent, in fact prolongation of risk to species in trying to sort out that question of critical habitat?

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

Complaints by whom?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

By people involved in developing recovery strategies and environmental groups. I'd have to refer you to the evidence that we heard at committee about two years ago on this point. It sounds like you're not aware of that evidence.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I know members of the recovery teams and I know that it's a difficult problem, but as I said, it makes no sense to write a recovery strategy without identifying critical habitat.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'd like to ask a few questions of Mr. Crabbe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have time for one.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Could you tell us, Mr. Crabbe, a little bit about the Wildlife Tomorrow program that I understand your organization runs? I gather it's a stewardship initiative of some 400,000 acres. What are some examples of outcomes from this program?

[Darrell Crabbe]

It's a public awareness program that recognizes the landowner, as mentioned before, for doing the right thing. We have thousands of landowners in Saskatchewan who put aside a slough, a wetland, a tree row, or whatever it might be and leave it and don't take it out. Today's modern agricultural processes would, in many cases, suggest you should pull out tree rows and those sorts of things. So we just started the program about 20 years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Crabbe, we'll have to move on to our next questioner. Our time is up.

We'll move on to Monsieur Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin with my questions, I would again like to thank the four witnesses for their involvement in habitat protection. What you are doing for nature conservation, each in your own way, is very important.

Dr. Mooers, the Conservative members of this committee have asked you a lot of very specific questions. It was becoming quite amusing to hear them. If you would like to, I think we would all agree to have you send additional information on your position on the Conservatives' concerns about specific legislation or perhaps all legislation. You would be welcome to. You could send that information to the committee clerk, who will be pleased to receive it. Do not hesitate to do it if you do not have all the details currently.

I would like to come back to your recommendation to the committee on adopting strict legislation that would be applied. This is responding to the fact that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the provisions on fish habitats and navigable waters have been weakened. What bothers me is the Conservative rhetoric that pits the economy against the environment. According to them, if we look after the environment, 3,000 jobs will disappear. That bothers me. I think that rhetoric is wrong. We need to learn to combine, to reconcile the economy and the environment. That is what will enable us to make the situation constructive for everyone.

Mr. Mooers, I would like you to make a recommendation on federal legislation. You spoke about it, but I would like it to be stated clearly so that the analysts can take note of it.

[Dr. Arne Mooers]

I recommend that the current committee recommend to the government that implementing strong endangered species legislation is the best medium-term way for the federal government to improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada at the present time.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for that clarification, Dr. Mooers. I think it is very important to have very clear recommendations on that.

Since you are a scientist, I would like you to tell us about the importance of making decisions based specifically on scientific fact. We sometimes forget to do that. References obtained on the ground are important, of course, but we need scientific facts. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of cuts to science recently.

Would you like to make a recommendation regarding science and our conservation plan?