Jean inquires about the use of environmental research in Yukon land-use planning - Dec 8, 2009

Ms. Jean Crowder: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to Mr. Robertson.

You mentioned the importance of science a couple of times. I wonder if you could say more about that. You quickly talked about climate change. I'm not sure what kind of science you're talking about. What are you looking for specifically around climate change?

Mr. Ian D. Robertson: We know that the north is experiencing climate faster and to a larger degree. The impacts of this on land use planning are significant, partly because land use planning focuses on a timeframe of 20-plus years. So if it's happening at the rates that it has been and that we see on the ground, we're going to have tremendous changes occurring, which means that we end up dealing with a whole new batch of issues that were unanticipated when the process started, or when it's time for the first set of reviews.

Ms. Jean Crowder: So what sort of science are you looking for? You've mentioned that a couple of times.

Mr. Ian D. Robertson: The basic science goes right back to everything from fisheries, water.... You know, we used to have water stations on all sorts of remote rivers. They're gone, so you're missing the continuity of the information. There's climatic data, some of the most fundamental basic stuff. There's the vegetation and the vegetation changes.

I can tell you, for example, that in my time in the Yukon, we've seen ranges of species of vegetation and wildlife change by 1,000 kilometres. We've seen the tree line move further north.

All of these things that are fundamental are really.... You know, we talk a good story, but one of the biggest issues for Canada as a whole is that we don't treat it as an investment and recognize the importance of continuity of information over time. We're picking and choosing what's the popular issue of the day. Yet if you went back historically, you would see that we spend a lot of time building up basic geology, surficial geology, and our mapping technology. We don't have adequate mapping of the north as a whole. The mapping of waters is a classic example. It is totally incomplete.

Ms. Jean Crowder: You're saying this information is scattered and there's not a coherent, cohesive picture. In the context of a 20-year land use plan, without this kind of information you're going to be making decisions 20 years out that actually may not have any relevance 20 years down the road.

Mr. Ian D. Robertson: Exactly. You're using imperfect information to make a best call at this point in time.

One of the issues that comes forward all the time, particularly for industry, is that very large areas just haven't been explored yet. If you identify an area for other values and there isn't an equal level of research and information, then you may decide to protect an area for its other values when it's sitting on a giant mineral deposit, which we might find we really need. That's just one example.

Ms. Jean Crowder: Mr. Mills, did you have a comment?

Mr. Stephen Mills: In relation to some of the information that he identified, such as water quality, water quantity, and other aspects, shutting down a lot of these monitoring stations has had a big impact on proponents. They have to undertake even more studies than in the past in order to get in the door with YESAA. It's a lot more difficult, and the onus is on even very small proponents to collect data that used to be collected by government over a long term.

Ms. Jean Crowder: In that context, again I'm coming back to the municipal planning process. In the province where I live, British Columbia, a lot of the scientific assessment has been downloaded to municipal councils. They don't actually have the capacity to gather that kind of scientific information, so what's happening is that the proponents are doing it, and there is a mistrust because the proponents have a stake in the outcomes from that scientific data.

I'm not suggesting that they all skew the data, but there is a fundamental mistrust because they're not seen as independent and unbiased. I don't know if you've come across that.

Mr. Ian D. Robertson: I think that's very true, but it goes back to what the government's role is. When government neglects to pay attention to the basics, such as straightforward traditional research, they're creating problems that have consequences down the way.

Where did we see this happening? We saw it happening in the 1980s when we were cutting the deficits. The first places we cut were the ones that cost us the most. If you have to fly up to the Belle River, it costs a hell of a lot more than the data in, say, a document.