Environment Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Within the frame of that plan—

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

I understood.

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

—yes.

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

Of course.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.

We'll move to Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to continue along the line of questioning about how we can best incorporate indigenous traditional knowledge into habitat conservation methodology in any policy that we put forward as government. I want to go back to the concept that Chief Louis introduced around how aboriginal groups may assess and select a species or habitat that might be at risk.

Chief Louis, perhaps you could expound a little bit on how your group identifies critical habitat, what criteria you use, and then what are some of the best practices for acting on those findings.

[Chief Byron Louis]

I think that again I have to base my answer on experience in regard to what you just mentioned, and again I have to go back to aquatic species and salmon. I think there was one of those areas in there that we looked upon as traditional knowledge.

Some of those things in there were not only on the species itself, but on the timing of that species. One of those things going through there was an argument over DFO saying that there was no early timed run, yet in what we call our captík, our traditional knowledge, there was identification of an earlier run that was larger, fatter, and arrived around the end of June and early August.

Well, some of those things in there...and one of the things that actually proved us right in that particular instance was the natural flow of water. The Okanagan Lake is actually a reservoir. It's not a natural lake anymore due to channelization. One of the things in there was a natural level of water that came through there, and what appeared was these particular timed salmon.

So one of the things with our traditional knowledge is looking at the management of water flows. I don't have the time to explain this, but what we did in conjunction with the DFO, the PUDs, and the province was that we implemented a water management tool. It's a water management tool that's a computer-operated program, but it mimics the natural hydrograph that was there prior to contact and was proven to do that.

Prior to that, if you were to get that, the province would pull the plug—like in a bathtub—drop the lake level down, expose kokanee reds along the lakeshore, and push out damned near 30% of the reds in the Okanagan River. With the implementation of that freshwater management tool, we cut the mortality from 30% to roughly zero.

[Michelle Rempel]

On that note, first of all, did you share that practice of how you came up with that information with local conservation groups or other levels of government? Is there a role for us in facilitating that knowledge transfer?

[Chief Byron Louis]

Yes, there is. With that whole thing on conversation, it has areas where, when you're doing the actual study or assessment, it calls for aboriginal traditional knowledge. That is a point where information can be entered. I forget what the actual name of it is, but it's collection of data on species right across Canada. That's a collection point for knowledge on species. SARA is a collection point. All federal departments have a point where traditional knowledge can be collected and can be used and implemented.

[Michelle Rempel]

Are there any specific local conservation groups that you work with in achieving some of these ends? How do you best manage that interface?

[Chief Byron Louis]

Well, we support a lot of local conservation groups. OCEOLA is one, which is located out of the Lake Country in the Okanagan. A program they're looking at is water flows that change from Duck Lake. What we really push is the aboriginal right to assist them in measures to protect that system. It's actually been a very good relationship.

We also work with some of the wildlife federations in other places in the province. It's pretty adversarial, but with the federations we've actually gotten to some levels of understanding. We may not agree on everything, but we do agree on important points.

[Michelle Rempel]

How did you get to that point, if you care to expand?

[Chief Byron Louis]

Well, it started out by just sitting down and gaining an understanding of some of our initiatives and programs and how they complement some of their goals and activities in the wildlife federation. It was a sort of a meeting of the minds, but it's the communication that's most important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan, go ahead.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Ewins, we're hearing that stakeholders are very concerned about the weakening of SARA. Two main changes to the act were proposed under the budget implementation act, 2012. First, there was no maximum term for SARA permits, which were intended to ensure that exempted activities did not jeopardize species survival or recovery, and second, no assurance that impacts on the critical habitat of species at risk will be minimized for a national energy board pipeline and other major infrastructure approvals.

Can you comment on that and give your recommendations for the committee?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Both are not desirable but they are examples of two components within an act that hasn't yet been fully implemented. I liken it to a toolkit. So far, you've been pulling out a couple of screwdrivers and a hammer, but you have 17 other tools in there, which if you want to build that house, a smart builder will build it best and it will stand up if he uses all the tools available. I am a perennial optimist. That's unfortunate but it's not the end of the world, because the other tools that really count, in terms of an efficient, effective implementation, haven't been used yet.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, so give us your wish list for that toolkit. You've mentioned it many times, as has Chief Louis.

What is the toolkit, the recommendation to this committee, please?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. Just focusing on one, which is the full use of the agreement provisions within the Species at Risk Act, sections 11, 12, 13, 73, and there's a pile of others. Those are the incentive-based vehicles where there is discretion. The minister doesn't have to, but he or she may, and that's what works elsewhere because that's the vehicle to frame the landscape-level solutions with local people in it and remove all the likelihood of lawsuits, etc., just because you have critical habitat. You can have critical habitat here, and through the agreement, you can permit all sorts of activities that are really low risk to the survival of the multiple species in there.

That's the certainty in it. The single recommendation is to get on with the act of using the conservation agreement provisions in the Species at Risk Act.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So, implement it.

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

To this point, the advisory committee has been advising the minister and the ADMs, etc., for about four years. We're told we can't see the very first draft conservation agreement, which is in your neck of the woods with the first nations, but we're not allowed to be—it's at Justice being assessed. I mean, Canada has taken nearly 10 years to even try to do one and still the people who are advising the minister can't see it.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What is your recommendation, very specifically?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Use conservation agreements, across all habitats for species at risk in Canada, with all the tenure holders.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

You mentioned freshwater assessments. Can you talk about that and make a recommendation to the committee, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I want to remind the committee about the terrestrial focus of this. I know there's some overlap but let's make sure we focus on terrestrial application.

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

I don't think I can for that one. I was just using that as an example in the context of filling an information gap. It is a riverine health assessment. Again it will be the freshwater example of watershed planning, including managing the adjacent riparian areas and agricultural woodland areas to make sure that the flow rates for that system are beneficial to all species living in the watershed. I don't have a specific recommendation on that one.