Evidence of meeting #31 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nunavut.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Land Claims Agreements Coalition, and President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Madam Chair, I forgot one comment.
4:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Land Claims Agreements Coalition, and President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I was at the Paris agreement with Canada, and in Nunavut we are actually getting pelicans from the Amazon. The Antarctica vortex is holding, but in our part of the world, 30% of our sea ice has receded.
Plus, when we refer to elders, we refer to them as traditional knowledge holders, not just elders physically getting old, but with the ability to transmit the total cosmology, environment, and weather that they inhabit.
I just want to say to Canada and to you that when we speak of conservation, it's crucial to know that icebergs are receding at a very fast pace.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much for that. You may not have been following all of the work of the committee so far, but we have had a wonderful opportunity to meet with many first nations. They are reflecting those comments, that elders are the holders of past knowledge. We recognize that our future depends on building on that and working with you in partnership going forward and that we cannot go forward without that partnership, so thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Land Claims Agreements Coalition, and President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I believe it's new knowledge, not just past knowledge. For Inuit, when we speak of the snow and ice and the reading of it, we have lost some lives because of the misreading, but more importantly, because of forest fires, we're getting grizzlies, we're getting insects, we're getting pelicans, all these animals we've never had before.
Thank you so much for your comment.
Qujannamiik.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses, by phone, video, and here in person. Meegwetch for your presentations.
First, I'd like to explore the idea that NTI has articulated around the need for IIBAs prior to the conclusion of agreements around new protected areas.
I should mention that it's a pleasure to see Mr. Uviluq here, having met him when we were both wearing different hats at the University of Ottawa.
Is it NTI's position that these IIBAs that would be negotiated in relation to protected areas would be public? Would the terms and conditions of such IIBAs be public?
October 25th, 2016 / 4:30 p.m.
Bruce Uviluq Legal Negotiator, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Absolutely. Because of the IIBA requirement, it's an obligation that the federal government has to do before an IIBA is done. It is public and we look forward to publishing those. There are some existing IIBAs for protected areas, and government is actually in breach of some protected areas right now. We're also working with them on establishing new IIBAs for protected areas, regarding marine protected areas.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
The letter that was sent to Minister Bennett on September 13 clearly outlines frustration with the federal government in relation to the implementation of past IIBAs. I'm not sure if all our committee members are aware of the long-standing litigation that the NTI was involved in with the federal government around, for example, the completion of environmental monitoring programs. If it's that experience, I wonder if you could describe that litigation a little bit and how it has coloured your perception of how the federal government should behave in the context of signing new IIBAs and creating new parks.
The sense I'm getting is that you're interested in new protected areas and you're interested in the federal government being an equal partner with the Inuit. However, past experience in the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of these IIBAs has been so frustrating to the Inuit that there's a certain reticence. I wonder if you could speak to that.
4:35 p.m.
Qilak Kusugak Director of Implementation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I suppose there is a lot of that. The lawsuit brought us to a certain point. The lawsuit existed for a reason. The reason was that we didn't feel at NTI that the federal government was holding up its end of the bargain.
At this stage, you're right, we have taken the time to review our past experiences, good and bad, which were relatively new in a lot of areas at those times. We were able to extract some of the positive experiences but also to recognize many of our challenges along the way.
Not complying with or not implementing obligations is a major hurdle for us. It's hard to swallow; it's hard to move forward when past obligations have not been met. We've had discussions on marine protected areas. We're stretching ourselves a little thin to have those discussions when we're also fighting on the front of trying to encourage government to meet those previous obligations. On top of that, we have funding issues, issues with the way in which IIBAs are funded.
I would like to state that IIBAs are really not what we do. We do IIBAs that are protected under the Nunavut agreement and the Constitution. It's important for us to have confidence that our partners at the federal level are willing to engage in proactive discussions as well as being able to rectify previous issues.
We have discussions on national historic sites; that is a current issue that we have. Then, going back to the funding issue, the sheer administrative burden that contribution agreements place on our finance departments simply does not make sense to us. We know and should indicate to you that we're a low-risk organization to work with.
I hope I answered your question. I got the red card from the chair.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, I'm sorry. We have six minutes for each questioner.
Thank you for that. I know there's lots more to be said, but we have to move to Mr. Fast.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you. My questions will be directed to Professor Bull.
If you don't have an answer to my questions, please let me know and I'll move on to the next one.
My first question is, is there any peer-reviewed literature or science that has measured Canada's capacity to use its wetlands, farmlands, grasslands, forests to sequester carbon?
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
Peer-reviewed? Yes, there would be some. It's spotty. Certainly there's been a strong team within the federal government that has tried to address this question, led out of the Canadian forest service, with a whole team of people on carbon accounting.
They have made a lot of progress. I think some of their analysis is very good. I would point you to some of that.
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
For example, they have a Canadian carbon budget model. Many papers have come out of the Canadian forest service. One of the lead authors is Dr. Werner Kurz.
The big hole in the analysis, and they would readily admit it, is on all the wetlands and all the carbon stored in the wetlands, which as I mentioned comprise 12% of the land base, which is very significant, and also in soils in general. It's very complex to deal with soil carbon.
Yes, I would say that on the tree side we have lots of material to work with, but on the soils and the wetlands there's a lot more to be done.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
It's one thing to actually account for our existing capacity to sequester carbon in our natural landscapes. It's quite another then to take it to the next step and say what we can do to enhance that capacity.
In your opinion, by applying—you called them new management strategies, you referred to them as bio-engineering technologies—is it possible to apply those in a manner that would actually allow us to increase our capacity beyond simply protecting our current capacity?
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
The answer is yes, I would say. I've been working with geneticists for the last eight years on different tree breeding techniques, and I can easily demonstrate for most of the boreal forest, for example, that with good tree breeding programs and putting the right tree on the right site, we could probably get a 30% gain in growth. The gain in growth then converts into increased carbon sequester.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is it true that younger trees sequester more carbon than older trees, or is that just a canard?
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
Younger trees grow faster, which means they sequester more. So yes, younger trees, maybe not when they're babies but, say, in 10 years to 50 years, they would be sequestering quickly.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Are you familiar with any international efforts to quantify and attribute to each country its contribution to sequestering carbon?
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
Yes. It's not all housed in one place. I work with European researchers through the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, so they would do the 28 European countries. The U.S. Forest Service would do the equivalent in the U.S. Various people try to tackle the tropical world, so it's not as if it's all housed in one place, although institutions like the UN FAO try to bring it together into some global statistics.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
Beyond tree breeding, you referred to a broader set of management strategies, new management strategies that should be brought to bear on our natural landscapes to protect and improve their capacity to sequester carbon. Can you get into more detail as to what those strategies might entail?
4:40 p.m.
Gary Bull
I can briefly touch on a few. Obviously, on the trees side, we could reduce losses to fire, insect, and disease. Again, this is where genomics comes into play. I work actively with Genome Canada on some of these problems. For example, we have now found a way to breed for resistance in a spruce weevil, that means suddenly we're no longer facing that same attack that we did 20 years ago. My researcher colleagues—
4:45 p.m.
Gary Bull
Okay, I'll stop there.
The same can be said on the disease losses, then of course we can increase growth through different strategies with biochar, with fertilization, a whole bunch of things that could be done to increase growth and reduce losses at the same time. It's a broad spectrum of things that could happen.