Evidence of meeting #71 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was manitoba.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
April 25th, 2013 / 9:45 a.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking part in this committee meeting, and for their interest in habitat conservation and conservation in general.
As you may know, this study is part of a broader plan, our national conservation plan.
Today is an interesting day, since we are going to be debating an NDP motion in the House of Commons on fighting climate change. Some Conservatives no longer believe that climate change is a threat to the planet and habitat conservation, among other things.
In that respect, I would like to know whether you think climate change is a threat to habitat conservation and if it should be one of the priorities of the report that will follow our study.
If you have any recommendations to make on the fight against climate change, I would be happy to hear them.
We could start with Dr. Mooers.
9:50 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Good morning.
Climate change is the single largest threat to Canada's well-being over the medium term—I'd like to state that absolutely unequivocally. It also makes this deliberation and a national conservation plan very difficult, because we have to plan for the future. It's a very complex issue and must be taken into account when doing the planning. With regard to specific recommendations, I think having a separate study on climate change and how it's going to affect the stewardship of biodiversity in Canada would be a good step forward.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
9:50 a.m.
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Conservation Halton
Climate change is particularly scary for those of us doing conservation in very fragmented landscapes, because you're essentially depending on having sufficient north-south connectivity so that species can migrate north as they need to. When you're dealing with a fragmented landscape, if those connections are broken, there's a pretty good chance those species won't be able to move quickly enough to survive.
At a conference a few years back I saw a presentation that looked at modelling different vegetation communities. The modelling showed that, essentially, new communities would be created that didn't even exist then. Ultimately, we have no idea what the species complement will be, and in turn, we don't know what types of wildlife those different habitats will support.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
9:50 a.m.
President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Thank you.
Yes, I think it's pretty fair to say that, no, there's no controversy about the fact that the climate is changing. The causes of climate change could be subject to great debate and controversy. Do we need to be cognizant of how this affects our environment as farmers? Absolutely. We think about this all the time. I have seen cropping patterns changing across the north-central plains of North America directly as a result of climate change.
Do we need to have climate change in the back of our minds at the time of deciding how to deal with our environment and conservation planning? I think we do. How much our activities in Canada will affect climate change on a global basis is another point of great debate. We should lead by example, but it's pretty evident that developing countries are contributing much more to greenhouse gas emissions than we are here in Canada.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Crabbe, I only have 30 seconds left, but I would like to hear your comments as well.
9:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
I believe that with climate change, our focus and our connectivity model of research—the Go Green program that we're doing here in Saskatchewan—is trying to escalate or speed up the timelines to secure habitat, to provide the connectivity opportunities, as mentioned by a couple of the other speakers here before. For us in Saskatchewan, to be able to secure wetlands at this particular junction is very, very important.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Choquette.
We'll move now to Mr. Lunney for five minutes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to pick up on what Mr. Mooers said. You talk about SARA being fully implemented. In reference to the farm plans, we talked about flexibility. I want to explore a little bit with you whether any habitat conservation strategy should ever focus on just one species, or whether it should be ecosystem-wide.
9:55 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
That's a very interesting question. I think if there's a single species at risk, most of the time it points to there being something wrong with the habitat in which it lives. I think the idea of concentrating at the policy level on areas where there are many species at risk is not necessarily a bad idea because that suggests that those habitats are especially at risk themselves, but we do not see at this time, as I said in my opening statement, a practical way to do ecosystem-based conservation at the regulatory level. Certainly, you've heard lots of very important and very good examples of how planning can be done at the watershed level, but the backstop has to be single species/endangered species legislation.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
On the same front, then, how do you avoid the challenges of harming habitat or other species as you carry out the recovery of a single species?
9:55 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
You are well aware that there can be conflicts, and those have to be mediated. But we must bear in mind that those species would not be at risk, these two competing species, if we had managed the landscape properly to begin with. What I think is lost in some of these discussions is the fact that we're dealing with endangered species because of things, most of the time, that we have done to the landscape. So if we can manage the landscape effectively—and as I said, you've heard from our other speakers some very good examples of how we can manage the landscape—then we won't have the problem of conflicts between management protocols for individual species on the landscape.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you.
We're both west coasters, I'm Nanaimo—Alberni, so I go from Georgia Strait all across to Tofino, Ucluelet, and Bamfield.
You'd be well aware that, just as an example of conflict, we reintroduced the sea otter not too many years ago, which is actually doing very well on the west coast of Vancouver Island. However, we had aboriginal folks here the other day, and one of them brought up the clam beds that had been there for thousands of years. They had raised clam beds, which would be an early form of aquaculture, but with the sea otters being very, very prolific—I've seen them on the west coast at Barkley Sound and up and down the island, even on the east side in Georgia Strait—a lot of them are coming back now and they're very successful at reproducing. The first nation word for them in the Nuu-chah-nulth language is literally, “he only eats the best”. They go in and take the most sexually mature among the shellfish and they're actually causing significant damage to first nations traditional clam beds and aquaculture projects. Then there's Dungeness crab on the west coast. They tell me out in Clayoquot Sound that the sea floor is littered with large male Dungeness crab shells. Are you aware of that particular situation?
9:55 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Yes, we are aware of these perceived conflicts between particular species and ourselves. We've seen that with bison, we've seen it with grizzly bears, and we've seen it with cougars on the east coast. We know the story.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Going back to the first nation word for it, “he only eats the best”, first nations are actually thinking that we may need to call for a cull in some instances of sea otters because they're causing very significant damage.
I wonder if you're aware of another one on the west coast, the Bamfield Huu-Ay-Aht community's abalone project expansion, involving species at risk, federal investment through Fisheries and Oceans with the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre, and five west coast universities.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Simon Fraser's involved in that as well. With great scientific endeavour, they found a way to raise these very valuable animals at risk in an aquaculture setting. You could stain the shells by feeding them a different coloured kelp, so they could be distinguished from a natural animal and then you sell them.
We lost the program because COSEWIC could not find a way to get their heads around permitting for a species listed as being at risk to allow them to sell it into the market to make the program sustainable. Then you could also release excess animals back into the wild. When they eat the natural kelp, they turn back to a natural colour and they could actually help a species at risk. We lost that program because of a rigid regulatory program. Are you aware of that?
10 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I am aware of it, yes.
10 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Can you comment on that, please, because that seems to be the program that you're encouraging us to implement wholesale?
10 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
That is the program that I'm encouraging you to implement wholesale, and as I've said before, after it has been properly implemented and we can see not just one or two examples, then we can start to have a discussion about what changes should be made.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
One more minute.
I'm sorry, Mr. Lunney, you're over the time. I was thinking it was seven minutes, my apologies. You were a little over.
We're going to move now to Monsieur Jacob.
10 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing this morning.
My first questions are for Dr. Mooers.
In December 2012, you and your colleagues sent an open letter to the Prime Minister. In the interest of people who might not have read it, could you explain what it contains, tell us how many scientists signed it, and tell us how the Prime Minister responded?
10 a.m.
Professor of Biological Diversity, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I should clarify that the letter has been signed but not yet sent to the Prime Minister. I do have it in front of me. It was signed by approximately a thousand scientists across the country. The letter is openly available, but it hasn't been delivered yet.
If I look through it very quickly, the letter states pretty much the position that I've been giving here. We are concerned about rumblings from the federal government about opening up the act and we are asking it to first implement the act fully and then have a proper evaluation of its effectiveness. That is the content of the letter.