Environment Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You're trying to tell me that the statement I just recited to you, you consider to be an impartial statement? Is that what you're saying?

[Christopher Majka]

It's certainly partial in the sense that I take a strong position on what the policy is.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You would understand if I considered you to not be an impartial, independent, non-partisan witness, wouldn't you, based on those two statements alone?

[Christopher Majka]

It's up to you what you consider me to be. I think the important point, and the important point in all science, is to evaluate all things according to their validity, simply on the basis of the facts.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Unfortunately, we have to be careful in questioning people who come before us with facts to make sure of the validity of what they're saying.

Are you familiar with Project Democracy?

[Christopher Majka]

Yes, absolutely. I'm involved in that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's right. And I understand the heart of Project Democracy was a statistical engine to provide riding-specific information on which opposition candidate would be best positioned to defeat the Conservatives. Do you remember that?

[Christopher Majka]

Yes, indeed.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In fact, you were engaged in the last election in this Project Democracy in attempting to defeat Conservative candidates, were you not?

[Christopher Majka]

The main objective of Project Democracy is that we're very strongly directed at electoral and political reform, and we are particularly interested in the introduction of proportional representation. That's our first and foremost focus.

How does that relate to science, however?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If I were to suggest to you that on April 11, 2011, you wrote that the tools provided by Project Democracy were precisely what was required for electors to determine which candidate to support in order to coalesce opposition support, wouldn't you agree with me that is suggestive of an attempt to work for the opposition and against the Conservatives? You wouldn't deny that, would you?

[Christopher Majka]

I would say that the first and foremost objective of Project Democracy is to look at the equitable distribution of political power according to an understanding of proportional representation. It certainly takes a partisan position.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

With respect, I'm going to go on the basis of the words you actually wrote on April 11, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., which seemed to be directed at coalescing support behind opposition candidates to defeat Conservative candidates, and ask you at least if you understand why someone like me, as well as many other Canadians who support the government, might want to be very cautious before accepting your evidence about anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Leslie, on a point of order.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I understand the point of trying to undermine the credibility of any witness. I think it shows a great attention to detail for MPs to actually look into the backgrounds of witnesses, but at some point, I think the questioning should turn to the scientific issue at hand and not what Mr. Majka does in his spare time.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I respond to that point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You may, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The whole point of my examination thus far has been to probe whether or not this witness would reliably and honestly disclose his partisanship to us, and I must confess, I have found him to be somewhat less than forthcoming about that. Consequently, I would suggest that I certainly am not prepared to accept his evidence on anything, and I would highly recommend that no one listening should accept his evidence on scientific issues when he hasn't been completely forthcoming about his particular bias and partisanship.

I don't believe my questioning is inappropriate, and those are my reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I'd encourage all members to keep their comments and their questions germane to the topic.

Mr. Woodworth, your time is up.

Ms. Liu, it's now your time. You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here.

I thank Mr. Majka for his very informative presentation on Project Democracy, but let's get back to talking about science.

I'd like to go back to talking about the spruce longhorn beetle, which is a topic that has been talked about in this committee. I was wondering if you could comment on how this species is a potentially invasive one, and also comment from the perspective of how climate change might affect it.

[Christopher Majka]

Yes, it's a very interesting subject. The brown spruce longhorn beetle is a species I'm particularly familiar with, both of us—as it were—being located here in Nova Scotia. It affords a particularly good opportunity to examine several important points that arise from my opening remarks.

The first is that we should have clear scientific evidence that the brown spruce longhorn beetle—I'll abbreviate it as the BSLB—is an invasive species before we jump to that conclusion and launch programs of quarantine, eradication, control, and various initiatives that restrict the movement of wood, all of which have been undertaken with regard to the BSLB. In order to obtain that kind of information, we need to undertake research that will shed light on whether this is so.

In the case of the BSLB, I must regrettably say that we do not have this evidence, and it's first and foremost because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not commissioned studies to determine this. As a consequence, 12 years have elapsed since the BSLB appeared on the Canadian radar, and substantial sums have been spent, chiefly by the federal government, on a variety of programs that, in my estimation, are almost certainly unnecessary. In the smallest possible nutshell, the BSLB is without doubt an alien species, but as I pointed out in my introductory remarks, not all alien species are invasive ones. Only a very small proportion of them are.

It's been very well studied in Europe, where it's not invasive, and there are many scientific reasons to believe that it's behaving no differently in Nova Scotia and in Canada than it is throughout its European range. There, they feed on dying trees that have reached a certain stage of ill health and form part of the natural processes of decay in the forest.

In Nova Scotia, they feed almost exclusively on red spruce, and I'd say two things. Scientists agree on two important points. One is that brown spruce longhorn beetles do not attack healthy trees, and two is that when a tree becomes of sufficiently ill health, the brown spruce longhorn beetles will feed on it.

So the essential question is whether that level of health is any different from that of many native longhorn beetles already common in our forests. If so, then the BSLB could be considered an invasive pest. If not, it simply joins an already existing suite of insects that, from an ecological perspective, do exactly the same thing that the BSLB does: help the natural processes of decayed composition and nutrient recycling in forest ecosystems.

Why don't we know the answer to this question? Well, because the CFIA has never asked it, and it has never commissioned the relatively simple and inexpensive scientific trials required to determine it. In my view, the decision was made at the outset by the CFIA to simply regard the BSLB as an invasive species, and there's been no attempt to actually provide evidence that this is so. A first and central principle of risk assessment and risk management is the determination of whether a species is actually a risk. Otherwise we fail to distinguish between bona fide invasive species and introduce species that are not.

There's another dimension to this issue that bears precisely on the topic of climate change. Since the 1960s, forest biologists have been documenting the declining health and vigour of red spruce in the United States. In some stands in northern New England, 30% to 60% of red spruce have experienced mortality, and there's been a lack of vigour in the surviving trees. There are similar concerns in the maritime provinces. Potential causes of this decline that have been examined include climate change; air pollution, particularly acid rain; insects; and disease. However, in one very important study in New York and western New England, investigators determined that climatic factors—that is to say, unusually warm summers, followed by unusual cold snaps in the winter—are important factors responsible for the decline.

Such increasingly pronounced fluctuations in the weather are precisely what is predicted to occur in the course of climate change. Consequently, it would be reasonable to expect that as climate change proceeds, red spruce in eastern Canada will be affected by such weather fluctuations, will suffer corresponding declines in health and vigour, and consequently that more suitable habitat will be available for the BSLB and many other native species. If this comes to pass, we may see a significant deterioration of red spruce in the coming decades, one not caused by invasive species but by climate change itself. In other words, the BSLB may be a symptom of the problem and not its cause.

So that's really how these two forces come together in relation to this particular species. We need to know whether it's invasive before we take other remedial action.

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

Thanks a lot for the examples and evidence that you've brought before the committee today.

I was wondering if you could comment on the government's strategy in terms of invasive species. You also made some suggestions in your presentation that this national strategy doesn't talk about climate change at all. I was wondering if you think that could be an improvement to the government's strategy.

[Christopher Majka]

I think it would be very much an improvement. This symposium that happened in November 2008 and included many different participants from regulatory agencies, Agriculture Canada, and forestry concerns clearly identified the importance of doing so—in fact, the indispensability of doing so—because as climate change continues to occur, we really must factor it into risk assessment and risk management formulas. Otherwise we're going to be missing a very essential component of what's happening ecologically and climatologically. So I think we definitely need to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have 15 seconds.

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

All right. I'll pass. Thanks.