Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[Greg Siekaniec]

Thank you.

Yes, we have found very keen interest now, particularly in the Winnipeg area, by developers to build what we would call naturalized wetlands versus retention ponds. Retention ponds mean just draining the water, letting sediment settle out, and pushing the water on through. You keep them mowed all the way down to the water's edge and attract Canada geese, algal blooms, and various things. The veterinarians will say, “Don't let your dog swim now, this time of year, because the algal blooms are harmful to pets”. We have found that by putting in naturalized wetlands, which have all the components of cattails, the plants that are supposed to be there, and tall grass in and around the edges that provide an additional buffer strip, communities are supporting them in a big way. They're keeping geese off of their yards and their lawns. They are providing phosphate filtration by the cattails there—which are a natural marsh attenuation of nutrient loading. It's a very positive net result and developers are embracing these naturalized wetlands in a keen way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Toet. We're out of time.

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have a question, though I missed some of the testimony. I'm very interested in your organizations. I want to congratulate you for the leadership you show to governments of all levels.

I wanted to ask a question based on question (c) of the study: “What are the most effective habitat conservation groups or organizations...?” But really the aspect of that I'm interested in is this. What are some very effective models for partnerships amongst the private sector, public sector, NGOs, local communities, and first nations? Is there a model that could somehow be part of the conservation strategy that the study is about? I'm thinking about the South Okanagan-Similkameen conservation initiative, because that's one that I worked on in my time as an environment minister in British Columbia. It seemed like those really multi-layered partnerships that pulled things together and could move ahead with conservation at that point were the exception and not the norm.

[John Lounds]

Thank you.

In my presentation I talked about the natural area conservation program as one of those kinds of private-public ways in which you can make more happen on the ground by bringing in leveraged dollars, and focusing it from a conservation planning point of view. But it also involves several land trusts at Ducks Unlimited Canada and lots of other partners on the ground that help out with volunteer stewardship work, etc.

But to your specific geography, we've been pleased recently that we've been able to acquire three properties right along the Canada-U.S. border, in concert with the landowners there, to help with the conservation of the South Okanagan-Similkameen. We've been involved and Ducks Unlimited has been involved for several years in the various partnerships with the Nature Trust of British Columbia, local landowners, and others there who are interested in conservation of what I understand is arguably one of the regions of Canada that has the most species at risk found anywhere.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Is there a specific framework that can be proposed for this conservation strategy? It seems to me that every region and every group invents its own way of doing partnerships. Some of them are great, some of them not so great. Anyway, that's just my thought, that if we could cookie-cutter the really effective models and have them as part of the strategy, we could take the best practices—

[John Lounds]

We actually have found that the partnerships are as diverse as Canada itself. Part of it depends as well on the type of land you're trying to conserve. Ranchlands in Alberta are quite a different partnership from what you're going to get in eastern Canada, for instance. But maybe I'll ask—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay, so maybe there are some incentives for partnerships. Obviously, you don't have the same types of organizations in every situation, but you need something to bring all the partners together, and land use planning does that.

This is for my information, because I didn't catch your presentation, Mr. Scarth, and I'm very interested in this alternative land use services program.

I was introduced to a model in Australia in the middle of the last decade. I'm not sure if it was in Victoria or New South Wales, but it was about incentives for conservation and ecological functioning. It was science-based, but it was not about giving money if groups did conservation. It was about the model or algorithm for quantifying ecological net benefit on the landscape based on the quantification of soil, water, fauna and flora measures.

Then the landowner would make a bid. We can improve these factors by x amount for $100 a hectare, and whoever could do the most with the least money would get the money. It was a very interesting way and the opposite of the approach, “We'll give you money, and you'll do what you can”.

Are you familiar with that? I had some presentations on that, and the ministry experts felt they had cut their costs a lot and created a lot more ecological value. Is that how yours works?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm sorry, Ms. Murray, but your time is up.

We're going to have to give time for witnesses. You know we have five-minute rounds, and you can't use five minutes for a question and get an answer.

I committed to leaving time for committee business, but we have a few minutes for one more question.

From the government side, we have Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel]

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lounds, very quickly, in the first round of funding for the NACP, I believe the government committed approximately $225 million. Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

That's correct.

[Michelle Rempel]

Then in Budget 2013 we've committed additional funds. Is that correct?

[John Lounds]

Yes, an additional $20 million.

[Michelle Rempel]

Excellent. So can you briefly give us some overview of the number of species that you feel have been protected due to the conservation efforts that you've made under the NACP, especially species listed under SARA? I'll ask the same question of the colleagues from Ducks Unlimited.

[John Lounds]

It's 148 species at risk.

But maybe for more detail, Michael, do you want to comment on that?

[Michael Bradstreet]

Did that answer your question?

[Michelle Rempel]

Perfectly.

And to Ducks Unlimited.

[Greg Siekaniec]

I'm going to have to go with the number that was just given.

[Michelle Rempel]

Would each of your organizations characterize the NACP funding and the additional NACP funding under economic action plan 2013 as something that will help to ensure the conservation of habitat for species at risk into the future as well?

[John Lounds]

In the places where we apply the funds, yes.

[Michelle Rempel]

Excellent, and to Ducks Unlimited.

[Greg Siekaniec]

Yes, where we apply funds and the species are present, the benefits will be retained.

[Michelle Rempel]

Fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

I want to adjourn the meeting. We're going to have about a three-minute recess to allow our witnesses to leave and then we'll reconvene for some committee business in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]