Environment Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Joshua McNeely]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, if you do read our submission, it does question the level of science we have in Canada. I'm sure everybody here is familiar with protests that were done by scientists about the slashing and burning of jobs and budgets for science, and the requirements to have science only meet the needs of industry or of some sort of technological advancement.

I'll let the submission speak for itself, because I could go on for days on this sort of subject. I think the media, and the protests from first nations and from scientists and from many others speak volumes by themselves.

To get back to the first part, you were talking about terms, about conservation and the use of that word, and understanding it. I would just simply answer with this. In Mi’kmaq we have a word, netukulimk. Netukulimk is very difficult to translate into English or French. It means to use, to conserve, to respect, to share, to leave for future generations, to leave some, just because that needs to stay and we shouldn't touch it. That is one word in Mi'kmaq, and it encompasses all of that. The precautionary approach, ecosystem-based management, and all these things we're trying to define—we're using mountains of papers trying to define it in English just because we have a hard time understanding that.

In Mi'kmaq we understand that with one word.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Ewins, there hasn't been much discussion around science or climate change, even though those are key concerns when you are trying to conserve terrestrial habitats.

Could you comment on that?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Thank you. That is a great question.

I would answer it framed by risk, because in our personal lives, right up to nations and even our planet, as we heard yesterday at the carbon pricing event held by the Canada 2020 organization, this is now beyond a doubt.

Of course there will always be information gaps, whether it's science or collated local indigenous knowledge. We always try to inform best, and to upgrade our basis for decision-making. Right now we have organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency releasing reports. The United Nations and the IUCN have as well. These are the best organizations that humanity can use to synthesize available information with well-informed models.

You can always find a few people who think the world is still flat, of course, but the point is that this isn't environmentalism. It's not any industry association advocating for one thing. These are the best our species across the entire planet can come up with. It says that given all the facts available, all the information and the models, this is where we're trending. We're already needing 1.8 planets at the current lifestyle we all enjoy here, so we have a problem ahead. It's all about how we choose today, at all scales, to manage the risks.

The risks are very clear. We should be leaving two-thirds of that fossil fuel reserve in the ground. That's the best information the world can synthesize. If we choose not to, then all we're doing is shunting that risk onto our children and grandchildren to deal with. Nicholas Stern, one of the world's top economists, has pronounced on this.

You know, arguably, from a habitat point of view and the livelihoods of local people, it's almost as if the current paradigms that drive our species and our economy are essentially Victorian, and we are disregarding the legacy of the risks that we're pushing onto future generations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Chief Louis, I don't have much time left, but could you tell us a bit more about how you see the holistic approach?

[Chief Byron Louis]

To more or less quickly elaborate on what you just asked, when you look at the environment, you can't just separate that from economics, but you also can't separate economics from the environment.

If you look at the effects of one thing, on the one hand it may be economically viable to do something, but on a health level, it may not be a viable alternative, with long-term health effects—diabetes, heart disease, different other factors in there—or if you lose a single species but gain that one year or that bottom line on your business.

For some of those things in there, I think it's very important, when we're looking at that.... You know, we went from an age of technology to knowledge, and I think all forms of knowledge are necessary in order for us to actually achieve what's considered a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you. Our time is up again.

Mr. Sopuck, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to drill down and see if I can tease out some specifics here. There were a lot of general comments, which is fine. That sets the stage, but I'd like to get some specifics. If we are about to craft public policy that actually works, we need specifics.

Chief Louis, you alluded to the deficiencies of how the Species at Risk Act is being implemented or of the act itself. Do you think we need to go into that act and make some changes to it so it answers some of the concerns you've raised?

[Chief Byron Louis]

What's required is not so much to make changes to the Species at Risk Act as to implement what's there. When you look at the Species at Risk Act, it provides opportunities for identification of species and some collection of traditional knowledge, but it also provides opportunities through the levels of recovery, planning, and other different aspects of that to actually have sound socio-economic analysis being conducted. I think that's the failure from an aboriginal standpoint. If you're familiar with the Statutory Instruments Act, you know that one more or less looks at the implication of a regulation or of not implementing that. In there, it also calls for a socio-economic analysis.

They'll do an analysis of pharmaceuticals. They'll do an analysis of impacts to industry and local economies, but there is nothing in there that provides for socio-economic analysis of aboriginal interest. A lot of these interests are economic, yet there's this pushing of the listing of the process, where you just pick and choose which ones you want to apply so that, for example, Environment Canada meets its obligations of conservation without actually implementing those points of analysis of socio-economic impacts.

Finally, there are things in there that talk about compensation for extraordinary impact, for example, under subsection 64(1). In order for that to be operable, there must be development of subsection 64(2), which hasn't been done. That act was passed in 2004. It's now 2013, and subsection 64(2) remains inoperable. That has affected places like Osoyoos, which has areas with high levels of species. It impacted some of the ability of a locatee to actually develop their land, and the loss of about 80% of their most valuable lands in that instance.

So I'm saying what's there needs to be followed, and there shouldn't be picking and choosing of whichever one is beneficial to whatever federal agency is looking at implementing it.

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

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Mr. Ewins, the term biodiversity targets is thrown around a lot. What I never see is a definition of biodiversity. When you write a law, you better have definitions. For example, the Canadian species mix is composed of native species, indigenous species, migratory species that come in and out, and many introduced species. Many of the introduced species are here to stay.

So does biodiversity mean the maximum number of species, period? Does it mean indigenous species only? Keep in mind that it's tempting to go to indigenous species only. I can see why people would go there. However, we humans have moved around a number of species that are actually quite beneficial to us. I'm thinking of species like pheasants, rainbow trout in the Great Lakes, and so on. Those so-called good species have settled in just fine.

If we're going to write any laws or develop policies to achieve biodiversity targets, could you please define biodiversity for me? Be as specific as you possibly can.

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

There are international definitions available. I would point you to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. They have a definition.

Everybody in this room may have a different understanding about what biological diversity includes. Mine, the WWF's, is that it is the range of living organisms and the diversity of the variability within and among different species, right from the amoeba up to the elephant.

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

So introduced species would count?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Yes. There are different layers and values that people can put on, and you categorize things as alien, exotic, introduced. There are also translocations, which involve people actually moving species to get ahead of climate change. In the forestry sector, of course, they have to do this. They're planting things using 50-year climate models.

Essentially, the smartest thing is to maximize the amount of variability you have in your area, whether or not you assist some of the species that are actually less mobile or less responsive. There are winners and losers. Canada geese are one of the winner species. Endangered species clearly have a tougher time hanging on.

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

But there are clearly species that we are trying our best to eliminate. I'm thinking of species that introduce agricultural pests, like wild oats, like quackgrass, that are such a problem in my area. Would they fall under your biodiversity targets, those introduced pest species that we want to eliminate?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

Sure. Your management target might be to remove that thing from a given place. Had they not been all removed with careful, expensive programs, rats on Langara Island in British Columbia essentially would have wiped out, removed all of the nesting sea birds. That's a value-based thing that humans do on top of what nature....

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

Now we're getting somewhere, because the human value-based criteria I think are very important. I don't think we can evade our responsibility to manage this place. We basically steward nature. We actively intervene on behalf of species that we want. I think it can be done within the bounds of ecosystem sustainability.

Mr. Ewins, I was really interested in your experience. You said that you work on the landscape that's being used, for example. One word that I didn't hear you say was property rights. I represent a rural constituency. Most of the land is privately owned farmland, and it's owned by people with a fierce attachment to their property. Many families, including mine, came from eastern Europe, and you only have to threaten an eastern European's property to see pure rage in action.

Many of the provisions and many of our acts do threaten property rights. The Species at Risk Act, in its habitat provisions, for example, is a disincentive to conserve species on the private landscape because if you have an endangered species on your own privately owned land, all of a sudden the heavy hand of government is potentially brought to bear on your use of the land that you own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Sopuck, we're running out of time.

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

Can you respond to that?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

In essence I disagree with that, because some of the critical provisions in the Species at Risk Act, certainly the ones regarding agreements and permits, sections 11, 12, 13, 73, etc., have not been used. For some baffling reason, the Government of Canada has chosen not to use them. In my experience at the farm gate with crofters and farmers—property tenure holders—in the U.K., it's different legislation but the imposition is solved through multiple conservation agreements, involving, where necessary, financial incentives and compensation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ewins.

We'll move now to Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for your powerful, impactful testimony. You've given us so much.

Chief Louis, I'm going to go to the specific recommendations that you have made. You mentioned you would like to see funding for alien invasive species. Is that correct?

[Chief Byron Louis]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. McNeely, you were very clear. You said always have an invitation, an open forum; share knowledge; and, you said, have money for these forums.

Is that correct?

[Joshua McNeely]

That is correct.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. That's another recommendation, so those are two recommendations we've had.

Now to Mr. Ewins. You've been very clear. A recommendation should be strategic environmental assessments. You've also mentioned incentives and monitoring. Could you give very specific recommendations for the committee regarding those two issues, please?

[Dr. Peter Ewins]

The one that ties them together would be, as I've just mentioned, using conservation management agreements with people who have rights on the land, including companies, to frame the necessary monitoring to do adaptive management—collectively people monitor things to make better decisions as you go through the management of human activities in that area—and to provide the mechanism for incentives and stewardship measures, which everybody needs—