ENVI Committee Meeting

     I'd like to call to order meeting number 76 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

    We have two groups of witnesses with us today.

    First we have, appearing in person.... They're having a little difficulty negotiating traffic, but representatives from the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval will be here shortly. By video conference, from Longueuil, Quebec, we have Andréanne Blais, biologist with the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Centre-du-Québec.

     Welcome to our committee by way of video. We ask you to proceed with your 10-minute opening statement. When our other witnesses arrive, we'll have their opening statement. Then our committee members will each have a round of questions for you.

    Madame Blais, proceed.

    Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me. This is a great privilege.

    My name is Andréanne Blais, and I am a biologist at the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Centre-du-Québec, a not-for-profit organization that promotes efforts to protect and improve the environment from a sustainable development perspective. Our niche area is joint action to promote the common interests of the various environmental stakeholders. I have been invited here today to talk more specifically about wetlands and the management of wetlands and wetland ecosystems.

    Wetlands have been abused for many years now, particularly by agricultural and urban development. I will cite only two examples. Approximately 45% of wetlands in the St. Lawrence lowlands in Quebec and Ontario have been lost, and 65% of the remaining natural environments have been disturbed. Sixty-eight percent of lowland wetlands have been lost in Ontario.

    We are seeing losses in the arctic and boreal wetlands in northern Canada. However, those are related to the impact of climate change, particularly the drying up of peat bogs, which I will discuss a little later in my presentation.

    Fortunately, however, attitudes are changing. Society's decision-makers and players are starting to take a more informed look at wetlands management, particularly at what we call the ecological goods and services provided by those wetlands. I am talking, for example, about the benefits that wetlands contribute to society, such as water filtration and water management. During dry periods, wetlands gradually release water to charge water tables and watercourses. There are also recreational, research, hunting and fishing benefits. So these are some of the many goods and services that benefit society as a whole.

    Wetlands currently cover 10% of the area of Quebec and 14% of Canada. Canada is one of the countries with the largest number of wetlands in the world.

    As I mentioned, this increasing awareness has resulted over the years in the adoption of various policies and statutory instruments. Of course, one need only consider the powers and duties provided for under several legislative frameworks, particularly those respecting transborder and international matters, as well as migratory birds, wildlife and fisheries. There is a significant body of legislation respecting wetlands, and Canada also has the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, the Convention on Wetlands and Habitat Joint Ventures.

    However, the legislative framework is very weak in Quebec, even with its Environmental Quality Act, which applies mainly to public lands and private lands with the largest development areas. That is where the legislative framework is weaker. However, there are good initiatives, particularly in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and some regulations in Ontario.

    Other deficiencies in wetlands management include the way wetlands are taken into consideration before projects are implemented. Wetlands are considered too late in the decision-making process. If they were examined earlier, they could be integrated into that process, particularly by weighing the economic value of ecological goods and services. The fact that they are overlooked is obviously the result of deficient wetland information, knowledge, monitoring and cartography—people do not know where wetlands are or what their value is—and a lack of awareness among private owners.

    We recommend that the committee establish clearer legislative guidelines and increase basic research in wetland cartography, monitoring and management practices.

    We also recommend developing financial incentives. This can be done by improving existing programs. I am talking about the EcoAction Community Funding Program, the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk and the Natural Areas Conservation Program in partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Technical support must also be provided so that wetlands can be considered in the pre-project phase.

    We also recommend providing a broader educational framework by developing a network of high-profile wetlands across Canada. Furthermore, with regard to climate change, we recommend adopting the precautionary principle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As I mentioned, peat bogs here in Canada hold 14% of all Canadian carbon and of all the world's carbon. If they dry out, that carbon will be released into the atmosphere and result in considerably higher greenhouse gas levels. If peat bogs dry up, they will release 25 times as much fossil fuel carbon as is released every year, which will have a major impact on climate change.

    To summarize, we absolutely believe that action must be taken to strengthen the legislative framework and to ensure that wetlands are taken into consideration before projects are undertaken.

    That completes my presentation. Thank you for listening.

     Thank you very much, Madame Blais.

    Our other witnesses have not arrived, so we are going to proceed to a round of questions from our committee members.

    We'll start with the Conservative side. Mr. Sopuck, for seven minutes.

    Thanks. I appreciated your presentation.

    I'm going to focus primarily on the privately owned landscape because that is what I am most familiar with and that's where the action is in terms of wetland conservation.

    You talked about a stronger legislative framework. Many of the farm groups that have presented to us have an instinctive aversion to regulations. You did touch on the issue of incentives. On the privately owned farmed landscape, would you prefer a regulatory approach to wetland conservation, or would you prefer an incentive-based approach where landowners are provided with incentives to conserve wetlands?

    That is an excellent question. I believe a legislative framework is necessary in order to respond to certain situations. By a strict framework, I mean that we really must put clear guidelines in place for the people who analyze projects. Wetlands development should not be prohibited. You obviously cannot prohibit development. Instead we have to reconcile development with conservation. To do that, we have to put clear guidelines in place to facilitate the work of analysts who approve certificates of authorization for wetlands development. Quebec's current guidelines are not clear, and that has resulted in lawsuits involving the cranberry industry.

    With regard to private lands, we are talking about property rights and we are also talking about pension funds. So that obviously involves owners' rights. I therefore believe we need to have strict guidelines for analysis purposes in addition to an awareness framework. Owners must understand why we are introducing this legislative framework, which sets analysis guidelines by means of certificates of authorization.

    Yes, but again, on the privately owned farmed landscape, the retention of wetlands has a significant cost to landowners. I think it's unreasonable for society to expect them to bear that cost without being compensated for it.

    Does your group work with the major farm group in Quebec, the UPA, and do you know what the UPA's position is on wetland conservation on the privately owned agricultural landscape?

    Yes, we work with the UPA and with Quebec's department of agriculture. Agriculture in Quebec is concentrated in the St. Lawrence lowlands, where the land is most fertile. We do feel that agriculture, which is a source of food for human beings, must take precedence over objectives, but we believe it is possible to reconcile those two aspects.

    Agricultural producers have everything to gain from wetlands conservation. If wetlands are not conserved, flooding during heavy rains will wash high levels of soil into watercourses, and rich, arable soil will be enormously depleted. Wetlands conservation thus benefits both parties, farmers and society.

    We believe we must assist farmers and offer them compensation if there are wetlands on their lands. They should be offered financial incentives, as is done under the Clean Water Act in the United States. These producers must be supported, and society should do it.

    It is interesting to note from an agricultural standpoint that new wetlands will be created. Producers have understood that the nutrient- and phosphorous-rich water that they use and that passes through their fields can pollute watercourses, and they will therefore filter the water from the wetlands they create on their lands.

    Both parties are really becoming receptive to the idea of working toward reconciliation. As I said, these producers really must be granted financial support.

     I'm pleased that you referenced the U.S programs, because the United States and Europe are farther ahead than anybody else in the world in terms of providing incentives to agricultural producers to conserve environmental resources on their land.

    Would your organization support the idea that Canada should have a nationwide incentive program to assist farmers and farm groups to deliver ecological goods and services to the rest of society?

    We do support that position. On the other hand, all groups should lower their tone because farmers are not the only ones affected by wetlands conservation. Municipalities and forest groups must also develop methods adapted to existing wetlands.

    If you start offering incentives, you will really have to strengthen and justify the framework, failing which, matters could get out of hand. People already conserving wetlands might request incentives without having to make any additional efforts. So we are in favour of offering incentives, but a framework really must be very clearly enforced.

    Thanks. I certainly appreciate the distinction you drew regarding those people who are already doing the right thing on their privately owned land by conserving wetlands. I think that's a very important distinction.

    I think with regard to the conservation of wetlands on the privately owned farmed landscape versus crown land, the policy choices are very different. Can you talk a little bit about your view of the different policy choices we have on the privately owned agricultural landscape versus publicly owned forestry land, for example, or other crown lands?

    Yes. I would perhaps mention at the outset that there is really a lot of speculation in private land prices. Very different local circumstances have a lot of impact on financial incentives. Some land is extremely expensive in Montreal and Laval, for example. It is therefore very difficult to provide financial incentives in those cases. Other, perhaps more legislative methods will therefore have to be found. However, the price of land in Centre-du-Québec may be more reasonable, which makes it possible to provide incentives.

    We also see that a considerable effort is really being made on crown lands compared to private lands. One need only think of all the migratory bird sanctuaries, national wildlife areas and national parks. A federal policy does a very good job of governing all activities on federal lands. The broad outlines and vision of your policy should also apply to private lands.

     Thank you very much, Madame Blais.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.

    We move now to Monsieur Choquette.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for appearing before the committee, Ms. Blais, and for sharing your knowledge and expertise with us once again.

    First of all, I wanted to acknowledge the excellent work you are doing in co-operation with the CRECQ team on environmental protection and in raising awareness of its importance among people and various organizations.

    I read your brief, which is very interesting, and the recommendations it contains are highly relevant. I will come back to that in a moment, but I wanted to emphasize that this brief is really well done.

    I wanted to start by addressing the issue of climate change. We in the NDP believe that we must act quickly on climate change, establish specific measures, develop an overall vision and be very active on the issue. We believe the present government is not doing enough work in this area.

    I see that it is very important to conserve wetlands. If I am not mistaken, you said that they contain methane and that it is therefore important to conserve peat bogs because they will otherwise release a lot of gas that will accelerate climate change. I also read in your brief that peat bogs are sometimes used for farming but that we must ensure that they are redeveloped. Can you expand on your thinking about the importance of properly conserving and restoring peat bogs?

    There are few peat bogs in the St. Lawrence lowlands, but many on the Manseau—Saint-Gilles plain and in the area to the north. They make up 40% of the wetlands we have in the Centre-du-Québec region. Peat bogs consist of a large layer of peat at least 30 cm thick. Peat is plant matter. It therefore consists of carbon, and, as is the case with all plant matter, when it dries and water leaves the peat, carbon is released into the atmosphere via chemical processes. That carbon, either carbon dioxide or methane, which is four times more dangerous than carbon dioxide, will be released into the atmosphere and will cause the kinds of climate change with which we are familiar. That is a little-known fact. However, many studies have noted this principle, but few have been conducted to monitor or confirm how much peat bog loss is due to climate change. Climate change results in extended periods of drought, and when rain falls, it falls very heavily and does not necessarily soak through the peat because it is too dense. So we have considerable losses in the peat bogs, which are carbon sinks to which we must pay attention. They are little climate change bombs.

    Development of the cranberry industry has also put significant pressure on the peat bogs in the Centre-du-Québec region. The system is currently slowing down because cranberry prices are falling. Producers are not operating at a profit and are therefore not developing. However, there has been a significant increase in the destruction of peat bogs in recent years as a result of the introduction of cranberry fields. The establishment of a cranberry field results in the total and irreversible destruction of a peat bog. On the other hand, another type of economic development is possible, and there are other ways to profit from peat bogs: peat extraction and the operation of interpretation trails in peat bogs. It takes about 10 years for a peat bog to return to its original state. There are a lot of other processes.

    In Ontario, we have a wetlands centre specializing in wetlands restoration, in particular. We have very highly developed Canadian expertise in this area. We must take advantage of that expertise in research, restoration and thus the restoration of wetland areas.

    Thank you very much.

    In your explanation, you mentioned two things that I wanted to discuss. The first was the effectiveness of wetlands in adapting somewhat to climate change. You discussed that quite clearly in your explanation a little earlier and also mentioned the importance of science, basic science in particular, because we know very little, or not enough, about all the benefits of wetlands and the importance of biodiversity in general. Unfortunately, the Conservative government recently cut funding for basic science in several areas. That does not help in effectively combating climate change or appropriately conserving biodiversity.

    I think your first recommendation is really very appropriate. The idea would be to have a national wetland inventory. Could you elaborate on your thinking on that subject?

    With regard to a national inventory, some organizations are doing extensive wildlife conservation work in wetlands, particularly Ducks Unlimited Canada, an organization with which you must be very familiar. These organizations co-operate with the federal government in various ways. They are currently mapping wetlands in places across Canada. We recommend moving forward with this national inventory because it will make it possible to take wetlands into consideration before projects are implemented.

    If we decide to build a store and file an application without knowing that there is a wetland on the site, the analysts might subsequently inform us of that fact, which would delay the proceedings, increase costs and lead to lawsuits. Being able to take this into consideration before the project gets under way would help adapt development in that area.

    For example, an industrial park is currently being developed on piles in wetlands in Victoriaville. These are very promising initiatives, which are also being introduced in Europe. You can really do certain things when you take wetlands into consideration before starting a project. For that purpose, we must establish a national inventory to determine where those wetlands are. Ducks Unlimited Canada is currently doing that in certain regions, but they obviously need financial support.

     Thank you very much, Madame Blais.

    Thank you, Monsieur Choquette.

    We move now to Mr. Woodworth for seven minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Blais.

    Thank you for your attendance with us today, even if it is by video. My French is insufficient to permit me to ask my questions dans la belle langue, so I will use English instead.

    First, I understand that 29% of Canadian wetlands are in fact on federal lands or lands under federal jurisdiction. I assume that some of those are in the province of Quebec. Is that correct?

    That 29% of wetlands subject to federal legislation is located more particularly in northern Ontario and on the boreal lands of Manitoba. Part of those lands are in northern Quebec, but more so in Ontario.

    So there are no federal jurisdiction wetlands in the province of Quebec? Is that your answer?

    Some wetlands in Quebec are subject to federal legislation. I could not tell you their exact area. For example, there are a lot of federal wetlands along the St. Lawrence River. The government has created a superb migratory bird sanctuary in the Nicolet region. That is a great federal initiative. So there are federal wetlands in Quebec, but I could not tell you what their area is.

    That's all right; I won't require that. But these are subject to the federal policy on wetland conservation. Is that correct?

    If the federal government maintains its policy and applies it as it should, the policy does apply to those lands.

    Are we doing an acceptable job on federal wetlands in Quebec?

    Yes.

    Good initiatives have been introduced on federal lands, particularly in the national parks such as the Mauricie National Park and the Gaspésie National Park. These great initiatives are mainly concentrated in the protected areas that you have established.

    The Government of Quebec also supports some good initiatives on provincial public lands, but the management of private lands is really still a problem.

    Right.

     Regarding private lands, you mentioned some programs that the government—and I think it's the Government of Canada—runs as incentives for private landowners. For example, you mentioned the habitat stewardship program. Am I correct that this is a Government of Canada program to encourage private owners to safeguard and/or restore wetlands?

    Yes.

    In particular, there is the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk, which, however, must be adapted when a species at risk is present in a wetland. If there are no species at risk, the program does not apply.

    There is also the EcoAction Program, through which we received a grant this year to increase awareness among the owners of 30 wetlands. At the national level, we have the Natural Areas Conservation Program.

    All these programs are often renewal-sensitive. We really recommend that these programs be renewed annually in order to support actions intended for private lands.

     That natural areas conservation program is also a federal program. Am I correct about that?

    The programs I mentioned are federal. There are also provincial programs. I failed to mention your Ecological Gifts Program, under which owners may donate their land and receive tax credits in return.

    As I understand it, you are very supportive of these programs and believe they are best practices that should be continued. Is that correct?

    Yes.

    However, conservation organizations must be involved in order for these programs to be implemented. CRECQ is one, but there are not enough conservation organizations in the Centre-du-Québec region to benefit from these programs. In my opinion, efforts must also be made to encourage the creation of organizations or to support groups such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which receives assistance from the Natural Areas Conservation Program, so that they can expand their fields of action and cover larger regions.

    Has your regional council, your agency, been able to work with any Government of Canada program?

    Yes.

    Every year we work as part of Environment Canada's programs, particularly the Habitat Stewardship Program and the EcoAction Program. These are programs from which we have benefited. The council is known for the performance of the programs it implements here in the region.

    Very good.

    The Province of Quebec has an Environment Quality Act. If it were enforced, would it have a good effect on wetland protection in Quebec?

    It would have a considerable impact if it were properly enforced. However, section 22 of the Environment Quality Act is not being adequately enforced. The legal framework is very flexible and the act's enforcement depends on the good will of the analysts in place. However, the minister is currently reviewing his act and will have to introduce a new bill by 2015. That is the result of a lawsuit involving cranberry production. That case has been heard by the courts.

    You have 15 seconds, Mr. Woodworth.

    Up until now, which has produced better results, the Environment Quality Act regulation or the incentive and stewardship programs that we've been discussing?

    A very short answer, if you can, Madame Blais.

    I would say that the incentives for conservation agencies have had a lot more impact on owners than the present act.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

    Thank you very much.

    We'll move now to Madame St-Denis.

    Good morning.

    Is the urban populations' awareness of wetlands conservation different from that of rural populations? Are people in rural areas more or less aware than people in the cities?

    That is an excellent question. People in rural areas are more aware because they have to manage the wetlands on their own lands. People in the municipalities and large cities have less contact with wetlands. They want them to be protected, but that is up to people in the rural areas. The wetlands are located on their lands. They deal with the management of those wetlands. I would say that people are nevertheless aware of the issue, given the pressure from large cities.

    I should also mention that the situation is very different from one city to another. The situation of wetlands in Montreal and Laval is a major concern. So immediate action must be taken in those major cities. In other Quebec regions, however, the rural sector is more concerned by wetlands conservation.

    My question is further to that of my colleague opposite.

    You said that awareness policies were more effective than restrictive rules. However, if we are talking about the common good of the general public, do you think that awareness will yield better results than imposing more rigid and demanding laws?

    That is an excellent distinction. Given the way the act is currently enforced, awareness policies are more effective. However, if we had a stricter legislative framework or clearer analytical guidelines, the act would have greater impact.

    However, both need to be done. If we do not want our population to be dead set against an act, we have to inform them about the basis of that act. The two go hand in hand.

    Could the objective of wetlands protection be to preserve public health? Are public health issues considered in discussing wetlands protection?

    That is not currently the case. However, you raise an important point because wetlands are excellent water filters in Quebec. I am talking about the drinking water and freshwater used by many communities. If wetlands disappeared, our water would no longer be adequately filtered and we would then need more effective water purification systems. That would entail higher economic costs.

    In that case, the Department of Health would necessarily be involved. I will give you an example. In New York, the entire city is supplied with water filtered by a wetland. There are no water treatment plants. All water consumed there comes from a wetland that has been conserved in a watershed upstream.

    Should government environmental assessment regulations adopt a separate approach to wetlands protection? Is that part of the overall environmental act?

    In Quebec, wetlands are considered under the Environment Quality Act in assessments conducted by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the BAPE. However, if the Canadian government effectively enforced its environmental assessments, wetlands would have to be considered even as public areas.

    A urea plant project is to be built in Centre-du-Québec. The plant's pilings are to be installed in the last remaining silver maple stands. The environmental assessment for the plant is not strict enough in that regard.

    You mentioned the possibility that the Canadian government might conduct stricter environmental assessments. Changes have been made to the act in recent environmental assessment bills. Many environmental assessment responsibilities have been assigned to the provinces. What do you think about that?

    Quebec is recognized internationally thanks to the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. I am not concerned about Quebec, but an assessment should perhaps be conducted for the other provinces based on more thorough research on the impact of the changes that have been made.

    There are a lot of social problems. How can we reconcile regional economic development with the endemic recessions in the major democracies and the survival of ecosystems? Do those three factors pose a problem? How can we reconcile all that?

    That is an excellent and important question. When a recession occurs, development tends to take precedence over collective goods. However, you have to consider that a wetland provides society with ecological goods and services worth $10,000 per hectare. If that $10,000 per hectare is lost, society will have to pay for it. If a recession occurs and society develops its wetlands, it will wind up in greater distress and have fewer goods and services.

    Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

     Go ahead.

    I have another question for you.

    Has Canada failed to meet its international obligations under the Convention on Wetlands?

    I would say that Canada was on the right track. We have 37 Ramsar sites. The convention you refer to is often called the Ramsar Convention. We have 37 sites, and 17 of them are protected areas. We are on the right track.

    However, cuts in recent years have particularly affected employees in national parks who organized awareness activities for visitors. Here at home, the Lac-Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve has also undergone cuts, and those cuts will obviously have an impact on the proper management of Ramsar sites in Canada.

    Thank you, Ms. Blais and Ms. St-Denis.

    We welcome our witnesses from the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval, Mr. Guy Garand and Madame Marie-Christine Bellemare. Welcome. I'm sorry you had some traffic issues, but we're glad you were able to arrive and appear before the committee.

    All of the committee members have a PowerPoint presentation.

    I'm going to give our witnesses a 10-minute opening statement. Because of where we are in the rotation of questions, I'm going to use the chairman's prerogative and say that after their presentation we're going to move into another seven-minute round. I'm going to name the committee members who have already requested to be on the list. If any party wants to change that sequence, it's up to you.

    I have on the list Madame Quach, Mr. Lunney, Monsieur Pilon, and Madame Rempel. Those will be our four questioners following the presentation. If any of the committee wants to change those, you can let me know while the presentation is proceeding.

    I welcome Mr. Guy Garand to start the presentation.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. There was a major accident on Highway 50 and we were caught in a traffic jam.

    I am here today with Marie-Christine Bellemare, who is a biologist. She is a project officer with us and covers wetlands and all natural areas in Laval. I cover natural environments and biodiversity in Laval and the greater Montreal area.

    If we look at policies across Canada, we must proceed by stages and break them down into three parts: Canada, Quebec and the municipalities. Canada enforces its regulations on the wetlands it owns. The Government of Quebec enforces section 22 of the Environment Quality Act, which requires authorization or a certificate of authorization in order to fill in or alter wetlands. The municipalities manage compensation as such and monitor compensation.

    Here I have a 1972 map that shows you the area of greater Montreal, which today is called the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. The red area is the entire area that was urbanized at the time and shows heat islands that have an impact on biodiversity, natural environments and human beings. Here we are in 1982. In the photograph, you can see that the red area has doubled in size as a result of development and the loss of agricultural areas and natural environments including wetlands within those areas. These are studies that I directed in the 1980s. You have the last photo, which dates back to 2005, when I conducted the last study with a consortium of universities: the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Université de Montréal and the Institut de recherche en biologie végétale. As you can see, we have lost an enormous number of natural environments and wetlands.

    To continue, let us look at the five major regions of the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. This is in the registry of the Government of Quebec. As you can see, from January 1, 2010 to May 8, 2013, 411 certificates of authorization were issued in greater Montreal for Laval, Montérégie, Laurentides and Lanaudière. You can see that, of that number, 92% of certificates of authorization were granted for the destruction or alteration of wetlands in the greater Montreal area, and that only one application was rejected by the Government of Quebec. That is utterly shameful, and I mean "utterly", and this continues at the same pace today.

    We at CREL have been monitoring developments in the wetlands since 2000. We have been monitoring all that for exactly 13 years. With regard to wetlands that have disappeared, the white area is the area that can be developed. We are not talking about wetlands on farmland.

    To give you an idea, in 2004, the Government of Quebec, CREL and the City of Laval decided, based on a specific photograph, that there were exactly 352 wetlands and that we had 332 hectares of land, the white area here, where development was permitted. As you can see, we lost a few wetlands in 2004. That was also the case in 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2012. We now have 97 wetlands that have been completely lost forever, 77 of which were partly altered. Consequently, 50% of wetlands have disappeared, which means that 38% of the area of wetlands in the Laval area has been lost. That is also what is happening for the entire greater Montreal area. Consequently, I now believe, based on the scientific knowledge we have about wetlands and the ecosystem, biological and water filtration and retention benefits they give us, that there is an urgent need to conserve these environments.

    With regard to compensation, you can look at the pie chart in the lower left, which is framed in black. The red and beige represent wetlands for which there has been compensation and that have been returned to the large pie chart. There has been acquisition for compensation over 53% of the wetlands. However, that acquisition was not necessarily on the basis of one wetland for another. In many cases, a wetland is destroyed but replaced by a fallow field, woodland or a riparian zone.

    As you can see, there are 3.2 hectares of wetland under management. That is not compensation. So it can be considered as a loss. The 17.6% corresponds to the development of riparian zones. Here again, there is no protection and no compensation. There has also been a loss of some 30 hectares, 29%. As you can see, there has been little or no compensation and we have a net loss.

     Approximately 15% of our wetlands remain in the river corridor of Montreal and the greater Montreal area today, including flood plains and wetlands on lands.

    I think the present situation is quite dramatic. Climate change is staring us in the face, and it will have an impact on biology and on these ecosystems. One need only think of the quality of water in the river. Water levels are falling everywhere in the rivers in the metropolitan area. You can correlate that with the destruction of wetlands, the channelling of streams and the filling in of flood plains, which are also wetlands.

    As for the benefits and utility of wetlands, I am going to hand the floor over to Ms. Bellemare.

    Thank you.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The perspective of the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval is mainly regional and local, but the purpose of our presentation today is to show you that, in spite of the big federal and provincial machine, when it comes down to actual situations at the municipal level, we see that wetlands are not well protected. Something is not working in the system, as the information we have presented to you shows.

    The problem, in my opinion, is that wetlands are constantly threatened because people still feel they have no value. People see them as mere swamps. And yet they have very high value. I believe Andréanne talked about that earlier. They provide many goods and services to the community.

    In the major metropolitan areas, the problem is that wetlands are often situated on private lands. Consequently, we must convince their owners to conserve them or else provide conservation organizations such as the CRE with the necessary tools to acquire them. In many instances, that is costly because these are private lands. That is a problem. We have to examine this issue. There are many potential solutions.

    I will take this opportunity to show you a few photographs to give you an idea of what we experience every day, particularly in Laval. Beautiful wetlands like this, which have high ecological value, are completely filled in. As you can see, the compensation required after they are filled in is not necessarily equivalent to the ecological loss incurred.

    As I told you, our mandate is mainly regional, but we believe the problem across Canada is that there is considerable inequality among the provinces. There is a Canadian policy, but it has not really helped achieve specific conservation or standardization objectives. Consequently, the provinces are somewhat left to their own devices. We think one solution would be to implement a framework with specific major policy directions. Then each province could, in a way, compare itself to the others.

    In our view, the Canadian approach to compensation is very flexible. However, the definition of "compensation" differs depending on the province or territory where we work. Can you compensate for the loss of a wetland with a land environment? Not necessarily, but it is done. Can you compensate for one hectare with another hectare? There are some ratios. Some scientific research is currently being done on that.

    In addition, compensation is rarely monitored. Wetlands that have been altered are restored, but no monitoring is necessarily done to determine whether that compensation has been successful.

    On that subject, I am going to tell you about the watershed-scale perspective. People currently examine the land, restore the wetland and go away. However, if a large plant is polluting the water upstream, the wetland is not restored because other pollutants seep into it. So you have to work on a much more comprehensive scale. The watershed scale is both geographic and ecological.

     May I ask you to wrap up shortly?

    Thank you very much.

    In short, it is a very logical scale. Action should be taken on this scale. That would make it possible to work in several types of wetlands with different and complementary functions. Peat bogs, marshes and swamps are examples of that. Some wetlands are also said to be isolated or riparian. They are directly linked to watercourses. They do not have the same function at all, but they are also relevant.

    We have to find a way to establish criteria to assess the importance of those various wetlands.

     Thank you very much, and thanks for respecting our time commitment. We do want to give our committee members time to ask questions.

    I may have indicated earlier, and I didn't intend to do that, that committee members are limited only to ask questions of our current witnesses. We still have our video witness with us, Madame Blais. You're welcome to direct your questions to either of our witnesses.

    We're going to proceed now to Madame Quach.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thanks to our witnesses for being here with us. It is very interesting to listen to you.

    I have several questions to ask. I am going to start with you, Mr. Garand.

    How do you think that failure to enforce certain acts or to compensate in a way that is not necessarily fair may undermine water quality in wetlands?

    In our jargon in biology, wetlands are nature's kidneys, just as forests are nature's lungs. Water flows inside plants, and it is the plants that work for us, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Plants capture all kinds of pollutants and even some oils.

    All major urban centres today have wastewater treatment plants. I do not want to advertise for it, but the Auberge Le Baluchon, a very large inn in Saint-Paulin, has spent millions of dollars to create wetlands in order to treat its wastewater. That is an example, a model to follow.

    In Montreal's Parc Jean-Drapeau, a large beach has been created on an island and water is filtered there by watershed plants.

    We could easily cite similar examples in the United States and Europe. This is a new trend that is much less expensive.

    All right.

    Do you think it would be effective to pass a federal act on the subject?

    It might be difficult to adapt that act to very large urban centres, but they must definitely be protected. As regards watershed management, we see that there is a shortage of wetlands in many areas, whereas wetlands help maintain water quality and recharge the water table. Water filtered by wetlands seeps into the water table and supplies many municipalities.

    Some municipalities in the Eastern Townships were short of water two years ago when the water table ran dry. Was there a connection with wetlands?

    As Ms. Blais mentioned, New York City's drinking water is supplied by the Catskill Mountains, which are situated 200 km or 300 km from the city. That place is known for the quality of the water it provides to New York. I think many major urban centres could protect their large natural filtering watersheds in order to supply themselves because most of the water in cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver is highly polluted.

    All right. So all that could offset climate change.

    You also addressed the issue of water levels. We often hear that the water levels in the St. Lawrence have constantly fallen in recent years.

    How do you think establishing a network of wetlands could help offset the effects of climate change and perhaps even improve our planet?

    Protecting or increasing the number of wetlands could have an impact on climate change, but that is not the solution we should adopt. We are headed in the wrong direction if we think that natural environments, both forests and wetlands, will reduce climate change. To really address climate change, we must also attack road transport across Canada and the United States. I would even say this is a global issue. In a way, wetlands are there to help us.

    My biggest fear is about water levels in the Rivière des Mille Îles, which have been low since 2001. The river was low at various times in 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2010, and municipalities have been forced to boil their water for six to eight weeks since the last low-water period. The river continues to dry out. Without going through the BAPE, the Government of Quebec issued an order to cut down a rocky headland between Lac des Deux Montagnes and the Rivière des Mille Îles to supply nearly 400,000 inhabitants with water.

    I cited some figures on this subject. There are plans to build 75,000 to 100,000 more housing units in northern Laval and in the major Laurentides and Lanaudière regions on the north shore of Laval. The water collection done there will also drain the waterways.

    Climate change, the channelling of streams and the filling in of flood plains are having an impact on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, but in addition to that there is all the residential water use. Every citizen, business and institution uses an enormous amount of water without paying any attention.

    We have always been told that Canada is a country of water and forests. Today, unfortunately, we see that the forests are being depleted and that there are problems with both our forests and our waterways. And yet Canada is considered one of the largest drinking water reserves in the world. All Canadians should be concerned about this asset and should want to protect and develop it because countries south of us, such as the United States, will one day need it.

    Yes, in the quite near future. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Blais, you talked a lot about educational networks. In the past two years, cuts have been made to Parks Canada, including to the Biosphere Reserve, which is the only museum in North America engaged in raising environmental awareness. You said that the cuts made to national parks could have an impact on management of the Ramsar sites, which include 17 protected areas.

    How do you think those cuts could affect the number and quality of wetlands?

    I am going to cite the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve as an example. We have an enormous problem: a moratorium had to be called on the yellow perch, which is a very common species of fish in our waterways. That species is now very rare in Lac Saint-Pierre, and the reason for that is the destruction of habitat in wetlands and riparian zones, as Mr. Garand mentioned. Wetlands protection will therefore help preserve one Ramsar site.

    People believe that a site is protected because it has been designated a Ramsar site, but that is not the case. A Ramsar site has connections everywhere. However, the waterways that flow into Lac Saint-Pierre do not come from Ramsar sites. The areas surrounding Ramsar sites must be preserved whether or not they are protected areas. As you mentioned, the Biosphere Reserve is doing an excellent job in this regard. However, the cuts have had the effect of reducing awareness activities, among other things.

    Fortunately, the provincial government has set aside a budget to protect the yellow perch, and the Biosphere Reserve has used that budget to conduct research on the yellow perch and to raise awareness. The fact remains that these centres must be funded so that society can be made aware of the issues.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Blais.

    Thank you, Ms. Quach.

     We'll move now to Mr. Lunney for seven minutes.

     Mr. Lunney.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I will ask my questions in English. Unfortunately, my French is somewhat deficient,

we might say.

    I want to thank our witnesses for contributing, and very enthusiastically, I might add, to the subject matter and to this important discussion.

    Madame Blais, you mentioned something about peat wetlands being displaced by cranberry production, and then cranberry prices coming and going. These lands might take years to remediate. But cranberries are wetland growth too.

    Can you explain a little more about that? It's the first time we've heard this concept. There's a lot of cranberry production in British Columbia, and in the Lower Mainland. Can you just explain a bit about this situation with cranberries and how that is resulting in a diminution of the value of those lands?

    Here in the Centre-du-Québec region, the Agricultural Operations Regulation, the AOR, limits the expansion of farming operations. We have water quality problems. However, although it has been proven that agriculture contributed to the pollution of the watercourses, the AOR does not cover small fruits, including cranberries.

    Cranberry production is currently expanding in the Centre-du-Québec. Cranberries need two things in order to grow: water and soil with an acidic pH. Peat bog sites offered excellent growing conditions for cranberries, in particular soil acidity and water. Since peat bogs have been destroyed, however, there is no way to restore those cranberry-growing conditions. It is like building an asphalt road. There is no possible way back.

    Many certificates of authorization have been granted for this crop, but the people at the Quebec Cranberry Growers Association are working with the department to develop techniques for growing cranberries outside peat bogs. They will target sandy lands. Sand has an acidic pH. They will create closed circuits in which water will circulate on the land without it being necessary to draw supplies from watercourses.

    Cranberries consume more water than any other crop. A ground water study just conducted in our region shows that approximately 90% of water consumption can be attributed to cranberry production. There are still some problems, but I believe growers are starting to work in a spirit of reconciliation. They have gradually begun to leave the peat bogs. However, the damage that has been caused is irreversible.

    Thank you very much for that.

    I want to raise the issue of habitat banking—I think that came up—in terms of what has happened in Montreal. You mentioned a significant loss of wetlands in and around the development areas as the urban areas expanded. I think you were concerned about the disturbing number of applications for development on sensitive areas that were approved.

    The concept of habitat banking.... Madame Bellemare, when you spoke you expanded on something Mr. Garand only touched on, but I think you asked if a hectare of land is equal to a hectare of land. You're concerned about habitat banking; there seems to be some strategy employed in Quebec, but it's not high-value land, or equal value.

    Could you give us a better idea of how the concept of habitat banking is being used? There must be high-value areas surrounding the Montreal area that could be protected, since it's very difficult to contain in the urban area.

    You talk about habitat banking and thus about doing a kind of land exchange. The problem is that people often work at a regional level. For example, can further wetland losses in Laval right now be compensated for? I do not even know whether there are still any available wetlands. So they will be considering forests and lands. That is good; they are protecting forests. We are not opposed to protecting forests, but we are talking about water and habitat management thresholds. Wetlands and forests have different functions. Consequently, what may constitute a compensation must be defined. That is important.

    How does that work at the present time? There is the mitigation sequence, which is explained in the federal policy on wetland conservation and is quite a widespread wetlands management method. That sequence is summed up in the words "avoid, minimize and compensate." As you have noticed, very rarely does anyone avoid or minimize. They go directly to compensation. I think we should promote the verbs "avoid and minimize". I think that is especially important.

    Are you saying that the problem is really because you're trying to compensate within a region, that it's regionally managed? Are you suggesting it would be a good idea to collaborate with other regions where there may be higher-value land that's more equal to the land that's being lost in terms of ecological services? Maybe we have a barrier here by trying to contain this within a regional area where you're losing high-value and there just isn't any high-value land to replace it with?

    Am I understanding you correctly? Could there be better collaboration with neighbouring regions that might have higher-value land that could be conserved, in development, with some collaboration between regions?

    You have to understand one thing. In Laval, for example, we have not yet reached the point where we have to compensate. We have reached the point where there is a shortage. We have to make gains. So we have to restore wetlands, acquire lands and restore flood plains. The situation is really not in balance. We have to recover wetlands. If we are talking about compensation, I believe that is what we must do.

    A little earlier I talked about taking action on the watershed scale. We must try not to work with political or administrative borders. We must work with a border that is more environmentally logical. That could be very promising.

    I believe Guy had something to say on the subject.

    You talk a lot about local management. I would say that the city of Laval is one community or region, but when you add the population of Montérégie, Montreal, Laval, Laurentides and Lanaudière, you realize that 80% to 85% of the population lives in that geographic area. That is where you find the largest networks of farmlands in Quebec. The greatest wealth of biodiversity is in southern Quebec. The same is true of southern Ontario—which I know well—the southern Prairies, where I have been many times, and all of southern Canada. That is where the greatest wealth is. The high north has an endless number of large peat bogs and there are wetlands, but they are not necessarily threatened at this time. The only threat that weighs on northern wetlands is that of climate change. We are talking about permafrost, soils that are permanently frozen, but if they thaw, there will be methane emissions and they will accelerate global warming. How far will it go? That is the question.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Garand and Mr. Lunney.

    We'll move now to Monsieur Pilon.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thanks to the witnesses for their respective presentations. They were all interesting.

    I would like to start by speaking to Mr. Garand and Ms. Bellemare.

    I think it is interesting that 411 certificates of authorization were issued and that there was only 1 rejection. Could you tell us what certificate that was and why it was denied?

    Do you know?

    That person must have put together a poor file.

    Since I have been a member of this committee, I have felt that a better understanding absolutely must be established between the municipal, provincial and federal levels. We are seeing that with the Charbonneau commission in Laval. I do not always watch the hearings, but I know very well, having grown up there, that those lands were considered as having no monetary value. The promoters close to the people in power bought them and developed them. So, unless I am mistaken, they were also compensated. That is not a joke.

    Can you tell us what the situation is in Laval? Can anything be done to prevent a municipality, whether it be Laval or another one, from allowing the friends of the people in power to buy wetlands, and thus to avoid a repeat of the situation?

    You are venturing onto a dangerous topic on which I will not offer an opinion.

    Canada, Quebec and the major metropolitan areas and municipalities should work together and make it a national objective to protect 30% of our lands. The Nagoya Protocol signed by a number of countries in 2010, and the UN Environmental Programme stated that we had to protect 17% of our forests and 10% of our waterways, for a total of 27%.

    The scientific communities, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and even Environment Canada's sites state that we must protect 30% of our territory. To my knowledge, we are far from achieving that objective on Canadian lands, even with the major national, provincial and other parks.

    It is a good thing to put figures on paper and to set objectives and talk about policies, but you have to take action at some point because if we wait too long, we will not be able to recover our lands and say that we will protect 30% of our territory. That is an issue. We are part of biodiversity as human beings and we need all the natural elements around us to ensure our survival and that of every living thing.

    I would like to add to that answer.

     In Laval in particular, although I think this situation can be extrapolated to other urban areas, the area is often divided into agricultural zones and zones where development is permitted. In agricultural zones, perhaps you can grow cranberries in peat bogs, but the wetlands situated in agricultural zones in Laval are protected in that they cannot be cultivated. Farmers often know that they are a water resource and therefore protect them.

    The problem is the zones that can be developed that belong to promoters who want to develop them. If we tell them those wetlands must be protected, their response to us will be that we have to buy their land and that it would be worth $8 million if they had developed it. We are the Conseil régional de l'environnement; we do not have $8 million to buy their land.

    Unfortunately, since the cities have power and there is no political will at the municipal level to protect those lands, the task is left to the individual. I believe there are not really any objectives, evaluations, criteria or monitoring at the national level, and an attempt should therefore be made to provide a framework for all that so that everyone does the same thing. For example, if the decision were made in Laval to protect the wetlands and to stop developing them, that would not be fair, relative to the Laurentides, which will continue to develop their wetlands for the next 30 years.

    We have to try to achieve a fair, standard arrangement for everyone. That will be a challenge, of course, but a necessary one.