Environment Committee on March 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

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

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'd like to start with Mr. Wilcox.

Since 2010, our government has been partnering with you in certain projects. I was wondering if you could provide some detail with regard to some of these projects, namely the Lake Erie binational nutrient management strategy, the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, and the Lake Erie lakewide action and management plan.

Could you give us a few more details on those?

[Ian Wilcox]

Yes, certainly.

Those projects you've mentioned are managed by federal and provincial partners. Conservation authorities, I have to be clear, are unique entities. We are mainly municipally driven, municipally funded, in terms of scale, very small scale, certainly from our provincial colleagues. About 20 years ago it became very obvious that we have a large role to play in these types of planning exercises, nutrient management strategies, and the rest, because we are an on-the-ground delivery agent.

It's always been our intent, our role, to participate in planning exercises. The ones you've talked about we've worked with Environment Canada, the Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Food, to assist with planning exercises, whether that's community engagement.... Again, we are small organizations. We like to believe we know people by their first name and can engage them in trying to bring these higher level planning exercises down to their front door.

We participate in the planning and in the information dissemination, but again, as I tried to provide in my opening comments, our role has always been to push, to make sure that plan equals work done on the ground. So in each of the cases you've mentioned, our role is to push it to implementation. I'll be very blunt, if there's funding associated with anyone, we're there with our hands out to make sure we can use and leverage that funding to get work done on the ground.

There's a whole variety of programs. There are the ones you've mentioned, the ones my colleagues have mentioned up here, where our role is to be there during the planning. We've been challenged in the past because there are 36 conservation authorities and when it comes to the Great Lakes there aren't enough seats around the table, so we've worked to regionalize our representation. But again, that's our only purpose in being there, to make sure. On the nutrient management strategy, for example, we have already changed our clean water program to elevate funding levels for nutrient retention plans. The report that was mentioned previously, just released from the IJC, we are again looking at our own implementation plan to see if we can modify it to take advantage of the latest policy and science.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

I wanted you to comment on something too. I think Mr. Richardson brought it up, the Drainage Act.

One of the things I've heard over and over is that the educational component is huge. My friend Mr. Sopuck always brings up the importance of wetlands and this Drainage Act, when you're talking about partnerships.

I was wondering if you had any stats on the rate at which wetlands are now being drained and if you have any statistics with regard to the U.S.A. as well. I was wondering if you could comment. Also, Mr. Richardson, I'm wondering if you have any information on that. It seems as if these wetlands are the lungs of the Great Lakes. With our different partners there seem to be competing jurisdictional issues sometimes that we have to look at.

[Ian Wilcox]

The Drainage Act could have a whole meeting on its own, I'll say. I'll skip right to the wetlands.

At this point there should be no further draining of wetlands. In Ontario's land use planning policy, as Mr. Nixon has described, we have regulations in place that prevent development, drainage of wetlands, through the Ministry of Natural Resources. That's for provincially significant wetlands. Conservation authorities also have their own statutory powers under the Conservation Authorities Act. We protect all wetlands. There is no development, no drainage of wetlands. I would argue, except in very rare circumstances, no further wetlands are being drained. The Drainage Act applies to areas apart from wetlands. I think Ontario, our jurisdiction, has done a good job.

I don't have information about the U.S. side, but I can certainly let Mr. Richardson comment further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Very briefly.

[Jim Richardson]

I don't have specific stats. Certainly we fund some portions of wetlands work under the Drainage Act where it's agricultural, and the vast majority of our budget has now gone to maintenance rather than construction of new drains. I agree with Mr. Wilcox that the rules largely prevent the draining of new lands, particularly any that are considered valuable.

On the U.S. side. the focus seems to be shifting from creating new wetlands for drainage to using wetlands to control water quality. There are some projects going that are looking at not just how much water is coming out of the drains, but the quality of the water that's discharged, and that goes back to that focus on dissolved phosphorus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

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

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

In terms of water quality, we get the impression from what we heard last week and what we read that point-source issues and the issue of toxics, while they're serious, are on their way to being dealt with.

Can we say, Mr. Richardson, that the next challenge is dealing with phosphorus inputs from non-point sources? Is that what the program should focus on?

[Jim Richardson]

Yes, from my perspective that's certainly what's in the context of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Nutrients were identified as a new priority. It has been there before, but it's certainly a much higher profile than in the past.

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

Mr. Wilcox, you made the point that no more wetlands should be drained. I think I heard you say that no more are being drained. Are you saying to us that on privately owned agricultural land a producer is prevented from draining a wetland, specifically in a private land agricultural case?

[Ian Wilcox]

That's what I'm saying. Yes.

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

Last time I asked about regulations on land use, so there are regulations in place that control land use on the privately owned agricultural landscape.

[Ian Wilcox]

Yes.

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

I've heard of a program in Norfolk County called alternate land use services. Have you heard of that program?

[Ian Wilcox]

Yes.

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

Is that the kind of model you would like to see spread across Ontario?

[Ian Wilcox]

That's a great question. We call the program ALUS.

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

Yes.

[Ian Wilcox]

It's an incentive-based program. I'll be very honest. We struggle with the program because it provides a level of compensation that exceeds any program we've delivered, and it's an ongoing form of compensation to the landowner for the societal good that's being derived from whatever change he has made to his management and land use. I would say that I would advocate for anything that encourages further conservation. I struggle with the funding model associated with the ALUS program.

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

I was involved with that program in a previous life. That funding model pays producers the opportunity cost. That is exactly what the European and the American programs pay. I would think that it's about time Canada stepped up to the plate and had programs of that same scale. That ALUS program is very strongly accepted by the agricultural community, isn't it?

[Jim Richardson]

Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly in the Norfolk region it has gained a lot of traction. Again, it's probably my jaded experience with a lack of funding for incentive programs. ALUS prescribes a model that has funding levels beyond what we've seen, but I'll tell you, if there is a political will to fund a program to that scale, then we're behind it all the way.

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

Well, you never know.

[Jim Richardson]

That's true.

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

Are you familiar, Mr. Richardson, with the New York City water supply watershed example? Upstream farmers were provided with incentives to change farming practices, and the subsequent improvement in water quality improved the drinking water quality for New York City. Is that something you're familiar with?