Environment Committee on May 29th, 2012

[Dr. Martin Willison]

I'm happy to pick up on this.

First of all, it's important to recognize that environmental variability is normal. And secondly, environments adapt. In other words, species and biodiversity adapt to change.

How do we therefore build a system that is able to be adaptive? We need protected areas, we need systems of protected areas, and we need linked systems of protected areas, so that as environment changes it's possible for species, organisms, and systems to move within that system of protected areas. That's the adaptive approach.

Regardless of what will happen with respect to climate change in the future, we can certainly expect the climate to change. But as to what will happen, we don't absolutely know. By consequence, what we need is a framework that allows for change to occur or assumes that change will occur and allows for adaption.

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

I'm falling into that redundancy problem again.

However, I will come back to the issue that Jeff has raised earlier about how you need your plan with your metrics so that you know what you've got, and then you can tell what you're losing if something is being cut here.

From my perspective, to answer your first question, in terms of developing new legislation processes, thinking about the oceans, about something that captures and forces an integrated coastal zone management or ecosystem management, whatever way you want to put that together, it's something that is going to be very important. Drive it similar to what you did with the Oceans Act, but push this forward so we develop out of that, plan the metrics, the other tools that we can use to assess what's going to happen if we cut or we do not provide the resources necessary to carry forth.

With regard to the climate change issue, yes, I agree with everything that's been said here before, but what I do know, especially in zones like the Arctic, where we're operating right now, is things are changing very rapidly. We need to put some resources into helping these local populations to cope with what's going to happen in the immediate short term, to understand how their lives are going to be different five years from now, ten years from now, while also trying to get to the point that we wrestle to the ground the commitments we need to make to control our own impacts.

Thank you.

[Todd Dupuis]

I'm not qualified, really, to talk about climate change. I do want to talk about, though, one of the points you did mention, and that's the budgetary rollbacks we're experiencing with the various federal departments.

For an individual who has spent 20 or so years walking rivers with waders and helping community groups, what's happening with those budgetary rollbacks is that the technical people in both provincial and federal governments are disappearing. These are the people who used to be on the ground providing technical advice for groups. The NGOs, who are doing yeoman's service in the field, restoring the habitat, carrying the burden of these rollbacks, are crying for technical advice.

So that's the biggest thing I see. They need the advice. They want to do the right thing. They have some resources. They have a lot of energy. But they need to either be trained or have someone go and tell them what to do. Over the last decade or more, and certainly with the latest round of cutbacks, we're seeing that this capacity has almost disappeared.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

We've seen that, yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired. Thank you.

Mr. Come Choquette, you have five minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I have many questions and comments. Obviously we have to fight climate change. We have travelled across the country and met with people who have told us that the fight against climate change is still crucial. I think that it should definitely be part of the national conservation plan.

We spoke a while ago about what our targets should be. They are easy to identify: they are part of the Aichi goals. We have signed an international agreement, and I hope we are going to comply with those targets.

My question is for Mr. Hutchings. At present, only about 1% of marine areas are protected, whereas the Aichi target is 10% by 2020. What are your recommendations for improving our performance in the protection of marine areas?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

Thank you, Monsieur Choquette, for your question.

Your estimate of 1% is actually an overestimate, if I may. In fact, we have protected officially approximately 0.8% of the aquatic waters in Canada, but about 0.3% of that is actually in fresh water. So we've probably protected one half of 1% of our marine waters, as opposed to almost 10% terrestrially.

Indeed, one of the Aichi targets is to achieve a 10% network of protected marine areas in Canada. One of the conclusions the Royal Society expert panel made in February this year looked specifically at that target and evaluated the likelihood that Canada would meet it. It's highly improbable that Canada will meet that particular target. In the eight years remaining, the pace and the energy does not seem to exist in order to protect the size of area required to meet that target, so it's quite unlikely that we will do so.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

What would you recommend for ensuring the best possible protection of marine areas? At present, as you say, we are really behind. What would you recommend to the committee for improving our plan, quickly?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

I think what we should do for now is we really need a Canadian discussion of this with the public. What's in the oceans belongs to all Canadians. The Supreme Court of Canada has made that very clear. It doesn't belong to industry. It doesn't belong to individuals. It belongs to Canadians. So Canadians have the stewardship responsibility to look after the oceans on a national and global basis.

One of the really good reasons for setting aside areas of the ocean from a protection perspective is simply to hedge against what we don't know, to hedge against our ignorance. There's a lot of work, and sometimes I think maybe too much work, in focusing on exactly where should we have this area or where should we have that area with sometimes the intention of helping fisheries. You're not going to help fisheries in many cases.

I think we have enough scientific information to ask Canadians if they think it's appropriate that we set aside the same percentage of our oceans that we do for our land.

[Technical difficulties--Editor]

In essence, is that an appropriate reflection of who we are as a society? We do have the 10% of our terrestrial land protected, and perhaps Canadians might feel the same would be appropriate for the marine realm, but we should ask them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

Yesterday, we were on the road. We went to Miscou Island, and Sackville River. Someone explained to us that it was important to have access to the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Yesterday we learned that more scientist positions have been cut at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

How can we have a credible national conservation plan if there are always cuts in science, for example, among the positions at Fisheries and Oceans Canada? I do not think that is helpful. What do you think?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

Well, I think there's no question that cutting back on the science capacities of government will hinder the development of a national conservation plan. In order to identify the objectives and targets for any type of plan, whether it's a marine protected area plan or a terrestrial biodiversity plan, we are ultimately reliant on government knowledge, and that comes from government science departments. They are the repository of this information over the last several decades, if not half-century and beyond. As I said earlier, private institutions, businesses, and academia simply do not have the capacity, knowledge, or experience to provide Canadians and the government with the information it will undoubtedly require to do the job properly. The weakening of science does not bode well for the establishment of a credible and defensible plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Next is Mr. Lunney. You have five minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

There's lots of food for thought here from all of you. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Dr. Willison, for your comments about adaptation, that ecosystems adapt, that species adapt, but we need to create a framework to optimize that adaptation, if I can paraphrase what you've said. It's on the record, so we appreciate those thoughts.

I want to direct a question to Dr. Hutchings, because we have someone who's experienced with COSEWIC here, who was a chair from 2006-2010. I want to throw a little question out to you.

On the west coast, with our organization similar to Huntsman, we had the Bamfield Marine Science Centre, and we had a species at risk: abalone. We had a Bamfield Huu-Ay-Aht abalone aquaculture project. DFO helped to fund this. They creatively found a way to grow these creatures in an aquaculture setting as a first nations opportunity. They could stain the shells a different colour by feeding them different coloured seaweed, so you could differentiate them from the natural abalone. Regrettably, to sustain the program you have to be able to sell these creatures into a high-value market.

One of my frustrations as a local MP was we could not get COSEWIC to make a decision to allow for the sale of these endangered species, or to allow for aquaculture to contribute, because if you put these animals back into the wild environment, they'll eat the local kelp and develop a normal-coloured shell, so you couldn't differentiate the aquaculture ones from the others.

Do you have any explanation that maybe would help me understand how that could happen? Secondly, how can we have decision-making that allows for recovery of species through creative programs that would help to create a local economy, especially for first nations, and get past a rigid “endangered: we cannot use them commercially“?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly the question of what COSEWIC does and the consequences of COSEWIC's assessments are of course not part of the COSEWIC decision-making process. COSEWIC is charged, under the act, with making species assessments on the basis of the best available scientific evidence that pertains to the status of those species.

The consequences from a social, economic, political, or financial perspective are not, under the act, meant to be part of the COSEWIC assessment decision-making framework. So if COSEWIC assessed abalone, it would be in a way that uses the same information and framework it would use to assess any other species, following criteria used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the IUCN.

Of course the assessment COSEWIC assigns to a species depends on the current status of that species relative to a series of criteria. Under a recovery strategy, if that recovery strategy is working, and a species has moved from an endangered or threatened level to a level at which it has met its target under the recovery strategy, then of course it would be down-listed by COSEWIC.

Almost irrespective of what COSEWIC does, government actually has a lot of tools available to it, both at the provincial and federal levels. With respect to abalone, I seem to recall discussions with some government officials regarding permits and permitting and the fact that the real stumbling block--and you might wish to look into this further--has to do with the permitting process at both the provincial and federal levels.

I can't speak in more detail about that now, simply because it's been a couple of years since I was fully familiar with it.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate those remarks, but perhaps there's something there we have to get around in order to find creative ways to help the economy and the recovery of the species.

We saw some great examples of habitat enhancement yesterday at Micou's Island. There is the Sackville Rivers Association, where great enhancement work is done. On the west coast we have the Pacific Salmon Foundation. They do a lot of great work. Our committee was out there a few weeks ago looking at salmon enhancement and habitat improvements on the east coast of Vancouver Island in particular, and some on the west coast of the island.

So what can we do? In the 2007 budget we had $225 million to partner with organizations to protect sensitive lands. This leveraged an equivalent amount of money for the Nature Conservancy and Nature Trust and many other good organizations. They were able to partner with groups like Ducks Unlimited and others to save sensitive lands.

Does this group have suggestions on how we can help to meet those objectives by partnering to save and enhance more sensitive areas?

[Dr. Martin Willison]

I'll be happy to jump in briefly on this one.

You mentioned Nova Scotia Nature Trust, which is an organization created in Nova Scotia for that kind of purpose. The problem is that done privately it's very expensive, and in practice relatively small advances have been made. The great part of it is that it involves communities, so that people get involved in it. So to some extent we make relatively small progress from an environmental perspective, but we make a lot of progress from a social perspective.

I would say that yes, it's a very good way to deal with things. On the other hand, if you put all your eggs in that basket, it won't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired. Thank you.

Madam Liu, you have five minutes.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks.

Going back to Mr. Hutchings, you said in the report published by the Royal Society of Canada that the government should take measures to limit the “discretionary power” of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to resolve the “conflicts of interest” inherent at the ministry. What exactly are you making reference to, and what are some solutions for this problem?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

I suppose what the panel was referring to there was the fact that there is no legislation in place, such that when a certain set of circumstances arises the minister must act in a particular way. Unlike the Species at Risk Act, for example, which is highly prescriptive, the Fisheries Act is highly discretionary. Whenever the minister faces a decision—a quota decision, where to put an MPA, and so on—it's ultimately up to the minister himself or herself. Often this is not even something ministers would actually like to have to deal with on a daily basis, but they do.

There is legislation. A good example is in the United States, where for overfishing and things of that nature, there are legislative requirements to set targets that must be followed by government. That kind of underpins what the Australia biodiversity and conservation legislation has as well. Norway is also attempting to achieve this. New Zealand has made steps.

Again, to underscore what I said earlier, not only might some form of legislative reform or revision, or perhaps a new piece of legislation, assist the current committee's activities and the minister's attempt to come up with a credible national conservation plan, but I think some attention to the discretion afforded to some ministers is something that's worth examining as well.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Great.

When you talk about monitoring programs that are essential for a national conservation strategy, who should be responsible for these monitoring programs? Should it be someone independent from the federal government?

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

The greatest challenge there is money and infrastructure. Other groups could certainly do the work if government were willing to provide the work. So a good example is the polar continental shelf project of Natural Resources Canada, set in Resolute in the Arctic. Fundamentally—and it's something I've personally taken advantage of as an Arctic researcher—this is a base that provided everything from planes to helicopters to boats to gasoline, in order for researchers to work in the Arctic. So the Arctic is a great example of a place where, in the absence of government infrastructure support, Canadian scientists and researchers and ENGOs simply will not be able to do the work on their own.

So I think government at a minimum has to provide that financial and infrastructure basis to allow either government scientists or others to do some of the monitoring work.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

Sticking to the theme of science, have you seen a shift, in terms of funding, from basic science to applied science? That's to you and to the other witnesses as well.

Dr. Whoriskey, perhaps you have a comment on that. Have you seen this shift, and if so, has this shift influenced your work and that of your colleagues? As well, when we're talking about a conservation plan and biodiversity, should we ensure that basic science does maintain its funding and maintain what it needs to continue?

[Dr. Frederick Whoriskey]

Yes, there has been a shift from basic towards applied science. The innovative scientists who are out there are basically trying to find ways to cope with this by squeezing in as much fundamental science...as part of their basic sciences.

As part of this, I perhaps work in a fortunate world right now, where the project I'm on, the ocean tracking network, is developing Canadian technologies—i.e., there are products we are selling globally that are magnifying the investments we're putting into our research by a factor of probably ten for every time we do things, while also generating a lot of really fundamental knowledge that has applied implications to it as well. Somehow we've managed to fuse all of that into place.

That's not to say that I do not believe in the fundamental research. I believe very strongly in it. It's where the great new ideas—the RIMs, and even the basic technology we're using as part of the supply network, the ocean tracking network, the sonic telemetry equipment—came from. So we have to keep that going.

[Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings]

If I may, I would say very briefly that I do think that there's actually incredible value in having basic government researchers work with government researchers, industry researchers, and so on. As Fred indicated, the goals of both can potentially be achieved, but the way we're currently doing things, which is requiring increased funding on the part of businesses to contribute to programs, puts an undue pressure on business and industry, and an increased movement in that area also takes away from basic discovery-oriented research. In fact, a novel and innovative way to think about this is how the two objectives can indeed be defined. We used to have that under the NSERC strategic grants program, which still exists, but it exists in a different form today. I think both objectives can be achieved if we have the will and the desire to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Time has expired.

We now have Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.