Environment Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Don Pearson]

We first understood, for example, that the conventional approaches to tillage were not suitable in all soil types. It depended on the soil type, depended on the slope. Fall ploughing with the mouldboard plough was the traditional way these things were done. It left acres exposed, and the areas were free to run off and contribute sediment into the local watercourse, destroy habitat, and move downstream. Of course it also represented a loss of nutrients.

As farming became more intense...because again, 40 years ago there was more livestock and there was more pasturing. You have crop rotations. When you move to a system where you have a corn and beans rotation, you basically have the soil exposed for nine months of the year outside of the growing season. You need to adopt other measures, such as conservation tillage where you leave the plant residue on the surface to help break up the impact of rain and reduce runoff. It also adds tilth to the soil and improves the soil structure.

Of course, farmers are innovators, and new technologies come along. It's a very competitive industry. Their weather-dependent economic margins being what they are, they have to adapt. They have to adapt very carefully to new production techniques. They need basically to understand, I think, how what they are doing impacts or doesn't impact the environment.

It's very much something where farmers need to learn from one another. You need the ability to sort of transfer what you learn in one landscape, in one soil type, in one production technique, to other areas.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In your statement you said that much has been learned. From that, I would take it that a lot has been taken up by the agricultural community, that they have made a lot of these practical changes to their processes.

[Don Pearson]

Yes. I think our challenge is really to take the 20% of producers who are really at the leading edge of the game, transfer what they know to the rest of the community, and make sure it's done to the same standard.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Pearson and then Ms. Fox, in your presentations you both talked about incentive funding to incent voluntary activities. Mr. Sopuck touched very briefly in his questioning on the recreational fisheries conservation program that supports these types of local projects. Are you familiar with this program, and do you see that type of program as being a great example of how we can do this, how we can incent this voluntary basis?

[Don Pearson]

In answer to the question, it is one approach if the objective is, again, managing or improving fisheries habitat. But if your objective is to reduce phosphorus on a very wide scale across the landscape, then I would assume that the guidelines of that program would restrict its ability to be applied.

I think the second issue has to do with the amount of money that actually needs to be sustained going into this. We at Conservation Ontario a number of years ago had collectively identified an investment of around $50 million a year that would be able to be leveraged but would be necessary to maintain the level of effort that we would need to get conservation tillage, nutrient reduction, and best management practices on that part of the landscape that is really contributing 80% of the problem.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But this type of program is exactly the type of program you're talking about on the incentive basis.

[Don Pearson]

Yes, and certainly programs that would assist the landowner in undertaking a project that had benefits beyond just the return on his investment at the farm gate.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Ms. Fox, did you want to add to that?

[Bonnie Fox]

No, other than to indicate that we are familiar with the program. In 2013 there were 18 projects that were funded in Ontario, and eight of those were projects that conservation authorities submitted to receive funding specific to fisheries habitat improvements.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The take-up was very good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Monsieur Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would now like to talk about water levels. You all talked about this, especially Mr. Murphy.

In 2013, the WWF gave the Thames River a very poor score for its flow. The water level is very important for the quality of the water.

A change in the flow or level of water will result in atmospheric warming, which in turn will lead to the thermostratification of the water column and accelerate the consumption of dissolved oxygen by plants and animals. So there would be less oxygen in the water. In addition, a drop in the water level reduces the dilution of chemical pollutants and leads to a decline in nutrients.

My question is for Mr. Pearson, Mr. Murphy or Ms. Fox. How do you think the federal government can improve the level or flow of water?

[Don Pearson]

Certainly the issue that you mentioned in the Thames River as being fair to poor for hydrology, according to the study done by WWF, was based on the reality that it is a watershed that has been heavily developed. It's heavily developed for agriculture, so it's been drained. The water and snow runs off very efficiently and that means that in drier seasons, we have lower flow and that's a concern. The way we would address that is by protecting the remaining wetlands and even expanding the remaining wetlands by reforesting, by protecting areas of the landscape that are important for infiltration of water.

Happily over the last number of years, the conservation authorities with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have been engaged in developing source protection plans and those are identifying areas of the watershed that are very important from the standpoint of protecting groundwater sources and, in turn, impacting the flows. But it's a problem that I think is very widespread and it is one that we need to put more effort into solving.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Murphy, did you want to add anything about this?

[Terry Murphy]

The flow problem in all of the rivers in our watershed this year wasn't a big problem for the public. Last year and the year before it was a major problem, but it's all totally connected to our climate.

In our case, we have 39 dams. Some of those dams are operated for low-flow augmentation, so we actually hold water back up north to let it out slowly in the summer when there's no water in the riverways.

Climate change, the patterns that it's creating...a better understanding of climate change will help us in the future to prepare better. Maybe we need bigger reservoirs for future climate predictions.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Ms. Fox, did you want to add anything?

[Bonnie Fox]

Perhaps just to emphasize, that's the reason for one of the priority location areas that I was talking about in terms of natural features in areas that are supporting the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem. That whole relationship between water quality and quantity is a major factor in that it is being a priority attention area.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have another topic I would like to discuss, but it may take up a lot of time. How much time I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Forty seconds.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

So I will skip my turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thirty-five....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I do not often skip my turn, but I will leave the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Bevington. He can use it during the next question period. He will continue to talk about cumulative effects. What he said was important and is not discussed often enough. This issue is addressed in isolation, and cumulative effects are forgotten.

This is a key aspect that must be taken into consideration. In studies such as the one on the Great Lakes Basin, we must not forget to look into cumulative effects and long-term forecasts. Mr. Bevington is one of the experts on these matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll move back to Mr. Woodworth, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In looking at this map, I would like to ask you some questions, Mr. Pearson.

It seems to me that the Lower Thames conservation area borders Lake St. Clair. Is that correct?