Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[Greg Siekaniec]

Yes, thank you very much. Science is really the backbone of Ducks Unlimited Canada. We believe that science is what guides your conservation strategies and it guides you in where you make conservation investments.

Jonathan spoke eloquently of how we much understand about waterfowl. That also extends to how much we know about waterfowl habitats, the wetlands and the grassland areas they depend upon. Through our science-based decision support system, we can now make very informed decisions as to where the most important areas are so that we actually go and target our work.

So within landscapes we have focal points and can drill down to a much more detailed level and can tell you that if we're going to put money in the ground to do this mission, here are the most important places to invest.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

All right.

With regard to all that and the government's role, you talked a lot about the need for the federal government to establish standards and targets in order then to measure advances and make adjustments.

Do you have any specific examples of targets that the federal government could put in place in order to make progress, to prove its leadership and to assist organizations in entering into partnerships and meeting challenges?

[Greg Siekaniec]

Yes, I think you've heard a great deal of discussion about how we really should strive for some level of recognized conservation status on the landscapes themselves within Canada. Now, very clearly, we're having a discussion about whether or not we're measuring them in some adequate manner or means, but I think we can get to a point where we simply recognize that we need to have some level of conservation to be able to feel and recognize from a science base that we're meeting the objectives that we've identified when we set out.

I believe that you can reach those through partnerships, and the partnerships begin, as I said, with our key constituents of private landowners, but they extend through the communities, municipal governments, country governments, and provincial governments as well as the federal government. I think everyone has to be engaged in recognizing that ecological goods and services, healthy landscapes, and ecological function are extremely important to the health and well-being of a society as a whole.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Madam Quach.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses. It has been very interesting today.

Mr. Scarth, you mentioned three counties in Alberta that have engaged in this. Can you name those counties?

[Jonathan Scarth]

Yes. The county we began working with two years ago was the County of Vermilion River, east of Edmonton; and more recently we began working with Parkland County near Edmonton, of course; and then Red Deer County just joined the program a few weeks ago.

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

Excellent. Thank you.

You talk very highly of the land use framework in this regard. Which level of government do you find best suited to dealing with private landowners and engaging them?

[Jonathan Scarth]

The municipal government, I would say, is the closest to the ground. They are responsible for difficult neighbour decisions on land use, for example. They're responsible for the drainage system. In many cases they're responsible for the local roads, which are related to the drainage system. And they are transparent and do annual financial reports. In the case of Vermilion River, they have a GIS person who can track what work they do, and we found them to be remarkably receptive in Alberta to the notion of actually managing the dollars. And just to be clear, the model I'm projecting is that they would receive the money directly from the municipality and pay it to the landowners.

So what we're trying to do is to support them in developing the capacity to aggregate these various incentives from the federal government, the provincial government, the private sector, developers, and duck hunters, and deliver them in a coherent way that is supported by the landowner community, which we have not done. We have not been supported by the landowner community in the work that we've done today to date, and I think there's a model here where we can have something that is politically sustainable. That's a term I use.

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

And when dealing with landowners, you find incentives to be far more productive than regulations?

[Jonathan Scarth]

There's no question, and I think the evidence is already before us. We have had regulations on the table for 40 or 50 years and they have not been enforced, because I don't think they can be enforced. You are basically expropriating property rights by telling landowners without incentives, without compensation, “Thou shalt not drain that wetland”.

The evidence is there. It has not had any impact.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lounds, you also talked about the importance of incentives in helping create and foster the relationships so that people see this as a benefit to their organization or farm or whatever it may be that they're working with. I was very interested when you were talking about utilizing partnerships and incentives to actually achieve a net gain in habitat conservation. Most of people we've had before committee just talked about no net loss, but it's a different way to look at it.

Could you talk about this a little bit—and then also, because our chair is very stringent with time, I'll throw out my other question. Could you talk about some of the industry's partnerships? For instance, I am chair of the mining caucus. Could you talk about the successful partnerships that you've had with the mining industry and how those have worked?

[John Lounds]

Thank you for the question.

I like to characterize the whole no net loss conversation around the fact that when we talk about development we talk about the net economic benefit from a development. We talk about the net social benefit, the hospitals and schools that get built. But when it comes to the environment, for some reason we talk about no net loss rather than what the net benefit can be for conservation and the environment going forward. So as a principle in terms of how we think about these things, I've been trying to say that this may be a better way for us to think about it and, obviously, we'd like to see the plan come to that same kind of conclusion.

In terms of how we designate and define protected or conserved areas, is there a made-in-Canada way of thinking about this that might be different from those of other countries in the world, one that is grounded in our own particular politics and the way we've got a division of powers here?

So some of the conversations we've had with the mining industry and others revolve around the essentially temporal nature of some of those resource developments. Some mines exist for 40 to 50 years. Could you actually think about the way in which a mining proposal comes forward? As long as you are not damaging irreplaceable habitat, is there a way you could actually come up with a mitigation strategy and other kind of strategy that obviously reduces the impact of that particular development in that area, but that also creates some kind of credit or offset that can be used to do other conservation lands, so that at the same time we do the development, we'd get another credit or offset in another important area?

You have also set up the mechanism for 40 or 50 years from now so that you reclaim that development and restore it appropriately such that it turns back to nature, and in the end you actually have some kind of net gain for conservation and the environment. We want to encourage thinking about that.

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

Do you have an example of that with the mining...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Your time is up, Mr. Storseth. We're going to move now to Mr. Choquette.

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

May I just say you are one of the top two chairs we've had this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Nice try.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much to our witnesses for being here with us today. For some of you, it is a pleasure to see you again.

My question will be more about the fight against climate change. You spoke about it briefly, of course, and I think that, with regard to Ducks Unlimited Canada and habitat conservation, for example, climate change is currently having an impact in those areas. Other witnesses mentioned that it might perhaps be important to conduct a study solely on climate change so that action can be taken on habitats, for example, in a way that is more beneficial, given the impact of climate change.

When do you think we could have a study that focuses solely on climate change?

I will begin with Mr. Lounds.

[John Lounds]

The subject of climate change is not our area of expertise. Actually, we think about this the other way around. We think about having a habitat conservation program or plan and the benefits that result from that— carbon storage, carbon sequestration, water, etc. From our point of view it's a very productive way of thinking about how we address broader environmental problems and issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Lounds.

I will remind Mr. Choquette of the parameters of the study of our committee. We're discussing habitat conservation and not climate change.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In part F of our study, we ask how the federal government could step up efforts in the area of habitat conservation in Canada?

In your view, is the fight against climate change an important part of what the federal government should do?

We have a sector-by-sector approach. Some provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have opted instead for a carbon tax. Quebec now has a carbon emissions trading market. That is an option favoured by the NDP as a solution at the federal level.

Mr. Siekaniec, what do you think of that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'd be quite interested in hearing my colleague's line of questioning should he point out that wetlands produce natural carbon sinks. So do grasslands. Conserving habitat and a habitat conservation plan would certainly help to adapt to climate change, including some mitigation measures. But I think bringing up the regulatory approach around climate change and greenhouse gas emissions might be a bit of a stretch for today's scope, and I'd ask you if that's the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I did indicate earlier, Mr. Choquette, that I would like you to focus your questions within the scope that we agreed to as a committee prior to our entering the study.

Please proceed.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am bringing you back to part F of our study.

How could the federal government step up habitat conservation efforts in Canada? I think the fight against climate change is an essential factor in this area. Other witnesses have mentioned that we must combat climate change in order to ensure habitat conservation.

I am going back to Mr. Scarth.

Earlier we talked about climate change. My colleague Mr. Pilon talked about it. We see that the influence of early melting pack ice and predator behaviour, for example, has a negative impact on mass reproduction.

Mr. Scarth, do you believe that is mainly caused by climate change?

[Jonathan Scarth]

No, I don't think so.

In think the main focus should be on how we address mitigation policies for all development, whether that be the development of oil and gas, the development of hydroelectric power, or the development of agricultural land. The focus should be on finding ways to convert that development into mitigation policies that have real benefits ecologically. That should be the theme of the work. Where we'll find some real benefits is in the reinvestment of proceeds from developments across the board into habitat incentives where they will have the most effect.