I had the distinct honour of addressing delegates at the British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Annual General Meeting & Convention in Fort St. John today. Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

---

Text of Speech

---

Introduction:

Hello and thank you for inviting me to join you here today at your AGM.

I’m glad to be here again to hear first hand from you about the challenges you see on our land base.

As many of you know I live and work in the Victoria region, well removed from the day-to-day experiences you have with your land and the wildlife you share it with.

That’s why I think it’s so important for me to come here and listen to your experiences. We are currently in the midst of the Spring legislative session, which means I have to be within 3-minutes of the legislative chamber at all times when the House is sitting in case there is vote – so that makes leaving Victoria quite tricky, but I’m glad I was able to fly up for today, even though it is a quick turn around.

I have been an MLA for almost 6 years now, and am grateful for every trip I get to take to Interior and Northern communities. Every time I am here I am reminded that there are no better caretakers of the land than those who have lived on it for generations.

You are impacted by the policies passed in Victoria, and see the consequences firsthand when they have been built on inadequate consultation or when they lack necessary local and traditional knowledge.

I think this is something that government and politicians of all stripes need to do better- myself included. That’s why I’m here today. And it is why I’ll be back with my colleagues again this summer as we travel through the Interior and Northern BC, learning from people who aren’t able to meet with us very easily in our community offices.

With wildlife policy, the importance of linking science with local and traditional knowledge is even more important. While we must all be guided by evidence about the state of our province’s wilderness and wildlife, that doesn’t replace the engagement of communities and the conversations that must take place about what the reality is on ground where the policies will apply. You cannot effectively have one without the other… As we’re seeing with the mess government has made of the caribou recovery situation.

To start, I will give a quick recap about the status of this minority government and revisit some of the remarks I made at last year’s AGM about wildlife population trends generally, because, unfortunately, things have not substantially improved since then.

I will also talk about the work my colleague Adam Olsen has been doing on wild salmon.

And, finally, I will provide an update on my perspective on glyphosate – touching on issues concerning climate change, cumulative effects, and the importance of stewardship along the way.

CASA/Minority Government:

Back in Spring 2017 – When the election results came in, indicating a minority government, with the BC Greens holding the balance of responsibility- we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided to go with the party that was open to working on climate policies and that is why we chose to support a BC NDP minority government over the BC Liberal minority government.

There have been ups and downs in our relationship, and there are things we simply won’t ever agree on.

My Green caucus colleagues and I don’t have the power to dictate the NDP’s agenda. We are consulted on policy and we bring our concerns, solutions, and perspective to the table. We collaborate on certain files like climate policy, professional reliance, child care, and initiatives to build a sustainable economy. But, ultimately, at the end of the day they are government, and we are in opposition.

In that role, we are also the recipient of a staggering amount of correspondence about environmental, economic, and social concerns from people all across the province. Anyone with environmental concerns that they feel aren’t being adequately addressed by the NDP or Liberals – which is pretty much all of them – comes to our office for support. I wish we could lean into every case and solve every problem, but there are only 3 of us and we have a very small, though determined, team.

It has been a learning experience.

For the first while after the election we tried to tackle every case, but we quickly learned that we were spreading ourselves so thin that we were no longer being effective. Instead, over the last year and a half, we have tried to focus strategically on our foundational issues and overarching policies. For that is where we can do the most good and have the biggest impact.

For example, rather than taking on every incidence of companies harming the environment by cutting, polluting, or contaminating, we made government review the overarching professional reliance model that governs industry’s work. This strategic focus means we can advance big picture policy changes that will restore some of that critical oversight and regulation back to government. Likewise, our work on the new Environmental Assessment Act requires early and upfront involvement of First Nations and better evaluation of cumulative and climate impacts before projects are approved.

This work isn’t as catchy or captivating as fighting every case of environmental injustice, but, from a governance perspective, it is more effective and more responsible.

And as I said, one of the main reasons we decided to form the agreement with the NDP is because I wanted to work on meaningful policies to address the looming climate crisis.

I know many of you see this firsthand – In many respects, your communities are on the frontline of climate change.

You are directly impacted by the pressure that climate change is putting on the forestry industry through pests, droughts, and fires, for example.

Where we only see the smoke of wildfires in Victoria or Vancouver, many of you actually fight the flames and experience the evacuations, displacement and devastating loss of property that can come with it.

I do not underestimate the physical, mental, emotional, and financial toll that can take on a person or on a community.

Ensuring that you live in a healthy environment – that you can hunt and fish and live on the land with your children and grandchildren – that is what motivated me to sign with a party that I thought was more likely to take climate action and environmental stewardship seriously.

While most politicians seem to be governing exclusively for the next election cycle, my Green caucus colleagues and I are trying to also govern for future generations and the long term well being of the environment we all depend on.

Science and state of the environment:

Prior to running for office, I was a climate scientist. So, while I do not have specialized knowledge about all species or ecosystems the way a biologist, forest ecologist, or someone with deep local or traditional knowledge might, I do share that commitment to trying to solve problems from an evidence-based perspective.

I have dedicated my career to understanding our world and its problems through science and have been surprised at how difficult it is to convince governments to consistently follow scientific reasoning. While the concept of science-based wildlife management has generally been endorsed in B.C., it has not always been applied.

There have been some successes. But the selective application of even sound policy has led to more disasters.

Many wildlife populations are in jeopardy today. Mountain caribou are facing extirpation, wild salmon – a foundation species – are in shocking decline, spotted owls are virtually extinct, and moose populations, which many families rely on, are in trouble across the province.

What we find in almost all of these instances is that there has been inadequate science, particularly concerning cumulative impacts, and that an unacceptable loss or alteration of vital habitat has occurred.

The management of wildlife, and the application, or not, of scientific principles, continues to stir great controversy and emotional debate in B.C. Understandably so.

Wildlife management conflicts in which species are pitted against one another are truly challenging, but I have always maintained that humans – elected representatives in particular – have a moral obligation to prevent endangered species from going extinct.

Often, extreme situations are created because government has failed to act. They are typically situations that – for a variety of industrial, social, or budgeting excuses – have been allowed to escalate far past a point of simpler intervention.

Some say that humans should not interfere with nature, but sadly, intervention is sometimes necessary. Simply put, many ecosystems have been altered so drastically that we can no longer just stand by and let nature take its course.

Predator control, hunting closures, and restrictions that stop industries from undertaking resource developments are all difficult matters for governments to deal with.

But things aren’t going to get easier. The management of wildlife is becoming increasingly complex and fraught with risk.

Habitat loss is mounting.

The human population is growing.

Roads and pipelines have been spreading into the farthest reaches of the province, and researchers have discovered how such developments increase predation, shift wildlife distribution, and impact abundance.

Adding to all these other stressors is climate change. The full implications aren’t yet clear, but we cannot situate our wildlife strategies in the past. Our environment is changing and will continue to do so.

Government must be prudent and precautionary as we manage our changing landscape as the planet warms. The timing and abundance of food availability, for instance, will shift for some plants and animals. Species reliant on their stability will need space and additional resources if they are to adapt.

In many respects, Northern BC, the Interior, and the people who live off those lands are on the front lines of climate change.

You are the ones fighting forest fires and flooding.

You are the boots on the ground when government is slow to act.

For far too long government has shortchanged wildlife management in B.C.

It’s fine for Ministers to say they support science-based decisions – but where is the science? Where are the field researchers? Where are the basic boots on the ground that are needed to keep a close watch on our wildlife populations and habitat? I’d say many of them are in this room.

The necessary funding just isn’t there.

B.C. ranks behind its neighbours in the northwest when it comes to investment in wildlife management. Alberta, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Utah – all spend more on managing less.

The shameful underfunding of wildlife management has taken place under successive Liberal regimes. Now we have a new NDP government, but it has yet to fully embrace – or fund – science-based management.

B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse province but if we are to maintain that rich biodiversity, we need to see a serious commitment to science-based, evidence-based wildlife management – and we need to have dedicated wildlife funding put in place, so managers have the budgets, and the staff, required to do the job.

As the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended in its Report on the Budget 2017 Consultations, license fees collected from natural resource users (hunters, anglers, ecotourists, etc.) should be directed into conservation and wildlife management services, rehabilitation, enforcement and education.

Effective natural resource management is reliant on funding, science, and social support. We seem to have consensus on this within the B.C. government, but it needs to be put into action.

Prior to the election, I campaigned on establishing a Natural Resource Commissioner who could lead a Natural Resources Board responsible for establishing sustainable harvest and extraction levels and reporting on the state of B.C.’s environment and natural assets. The NRB, I proposed, would conduct cumulative impact assessments, and oversee the application of the professional reliance model.

There is much we can do to advance the values of scientific monitoring, reporting, and cumulative assessment.

Managing wildlife has always been difficult, but never more so than now, in the face of climate change.

We need a comprehensive science- and ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management. We simply cannot continue to perpetuate the slow, methodical extirpation of native species in B.C.

Ecosystem-based management calls for natural resources, habitat, and species to be managed collectively, over a long time frame, rather than just looking at a single sector or single species.

Cumulative impacts are assessed – an approach which B.C. urgently must follow because of the sweep of industrial development now taking place in many sectors of the province.

Given the countless challenges facing wildlife in our province, two of the most important things we can do to protect biodiversity is to work with local communities to leave key habitat areas intact and restore and improve funding to conservation, monitoring and scientific management efforts.

As British Columbia continues to warm and precipitation patterns continue to change,

as flooding and drought becomes more frequent and extreme,

as out of control wildfires become more common and more damaging,

as pest infestations become more diverse,

and as between 20 and 30 percent of the world’s plants and animals becoming at risk of extinction by mid century,

we have a responsibility to take steps now.

It won’t be easy. But proactively protecting ecosystems to improve resiliency and adaptive capacity to the changes a warming climate will bring is vital.

Salmon:

My colleague Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, has dedicated much of his time to fighting for the protection and restoration of wild salmon in BC.

Adam made it his mission to speak for the salmon in the BC Legislature; raising their challenges repeatedly in question period and canvassing the six Ministries with salmon jurisdiction in estimates. Nearly every Minister’s answer was some version of… ‘I care about wild salmon too, but, unfortunately, that’s not my job.’

Amidst the finger pointing and confusion about who is doing what, Adam identified a possible path forward and called on the government to establish a Wild Salmon Secretariat to streamline all the work being done within the BC government and – importantly – be a strong defender of wild salmon in negotiations with the federal government.

After all, he reasoned, good salmon policy is good environmental, social and economic policy.

Last Spring, Adam organized a special forum that brought together a wide range of stakeholder groups to discuss his proposal in greater detail.

Representatives of First Nations, fish and wildlife organizations, conservation groups, non-profit advocacy agencies and a commercial fishing union met to discuss how the province could play a more effective role in the management of wild salmon. BC Wildlife Federation, of course, was in attendance.

Salmon are largely a federal responsibility, but several speakers at the forum highlighted the province’s responsibility for watersheds. Salmon are vitally important to British Columbians, they said, and the province should prioritize their well being.

The majority of participants also relayed frustration in trying to deal with the provincial government on salmon issues, having been passed from department to department because there was no single ministry in charge of the file.

When government tries to balance every competing interest, wild fish are the losers. Adam argued instead that when we put wild fish first, long-term benefits flow to all interests.

With six different provincial ministries, in addition to DFO federally, involved in the management of salmon and steelhead proactive protection is very rarely achieved. These ministries (the Ministry of Environment being the exception) all have mandates to advance development that is detrimental to salmon.

They are tasked with mitigating damage where possible, but it is not the priority. In addition, no one in government is tracking the cumulative impact of all these activities.

Even if each ministry only has a moderate impact on fish habitat, it can add up to salmon being hit at every stage of their development: spawning grounds are constrained by municipal expansion, streams are channeled under roads, rivers are polluted with agricultural runoff, watersheds are logged causing waterways to cloud with silt and get too hot, migratory routes are lined with fish farms… No one in government is taking the perspective of the salmon.

With the encouragement of stakeholders and First Nations, Adam released a report and challenged the government to pick up his proposal to create a wild salmon secretariat for the province, based in the premier’s office.

Government agreed… but then put their own spin on it. They did create a wild salmon secretariat in the premier’s office, but instead of giving them a mandate to streamline and coordinate the work being done for salmon and steelhead, they struck a 14-person wild salmon advisory council and tasked the salmon secretariat with coordinating their work…

It wasn’t exactly what we were going for: we wanted one leader and more coordination – not 14 additional voices.

We were told the Wild Salmon Advisory Council would write a report and then refer it to a legislative committee for official public consultation around the province.

To keep the work moving, we agreed to support the Council on the condition that their assignment be done with urgency. Adam was on the council and advocated to have more conservation representation. When that didn’t happen he worked to represent that voice himself.

Other challenge came when government decided to scrap the idea of having the legislative committee do the consultation and instead got the council to hold last-minute town halls. We disagreed with that approach because it lacked official transparency and was disproportionately focused on coastal communities at the exclusion of inland areas that also rely on salmon.

We declined to attend any of those town halls.

Despite the disorganized process, the Wild Salmon Advisory Council drafted a strong report and submitted their final recommendations to government this winter. Glad to have their work completed Adam focused on the next hurdle: getting government to action and fund the salmon restoration and protection measures we all know are needed.

In our 2019 budget submission, four of our top five requests were salmon and habitat restoration focused. Adam tweeted a salmon and steelhead demand at government every day – threatening to keep going until they found some money for wild fish.

He repeated, countless times, his demands:

1. Government needs to protect vital and intact ecosystems (like the Heart of the Fraser acquisition BCWF has been working on),
2. Government needs to restore habitat by funding local restoration projects, and
3. Government needs to coordinate and streamline the responsibility for wild fish within the provincial government – if we allow 6 ministries plus DFO to all take a “lead role” on fish we will manage them to zero.

I was getting sick of hearing Adam rant about salmon all day every day, so gratefully, this March we got notice that the money was coming and the tweets could stop. The province and federal governments came together to allocate $142 million dollars over five years for salmon in BC.

The first round of applications have been submitted (on an expedited timeline because of the federal election) and there are some really exciting projects in the mix.

Adam recently got an update from government on the funding and is feeling cautiously optimistic that some strong community and First Nations-led habitat restoration projects will be approved.

The next phase of his salmon and steelhead work will focus on making sure government approves and funds projects in a coordinated, strategic manner so that the money is actually effective at restoring or protecting fish. If we approve a million dollar spawning ground restoration project, for example, but continue to allow gill netting downstream or clear cutting upstream we won’t achieve much… So the work continues.

I really appreciate Adam’s dedication to this file and his willingness to stay at the table focused on the end goal.

In regards to the recent chinook closures, our position was similar to BCWFs, I believe. Obviously, we support conservation closures for species at risk of extinction (especially of gillnet fisheries which are non-selective), but we also call on both governments to reconcile their ongoing contributions to climate change and ecosystem destruction that has led to the decline of wild salmon in the first place.

Governments have to go beyond partial measures to address the more systemic problems limiting salmon productivity so that theses sacrifices from hard working British Columbians and local communities are not made in vain.

Yes, we are at a point with many of these salmon and steelhead stocks where everyone has to make sacrifices and all of the stakeholders and First Nations we’ve spoken to are willing to go without to support recover. But, in our perspective, that needs to be everyone – governments and industry included.

They need to address the root causes of their declines: climate change effects (ocean acidification, extreme weather, floods, mega-wildfires, drought and increased water temperatures) and land management effects (over logging of watersheds, which leads to hotter, siltier rivers; water pollution from mines, other industry, and agriculture; and the destruction of habitat, especially key spawning grounds).

As it currently stands, it’s hard not to feel that Ottawa is making British Columbians pay for their decades of mismanagement.

Glyphosate:

To glyphosate, my colleagues and I have been challenging government on this issue in question period and estimates since it was brought to my attention by your leadership.

As you well know, every years tens of thousands of hectares of forest in British Columbia are aerially treated with glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the weedkiller at the centre of the Monsanto case that recently revealed a corporate campaign to cover up the risks that this chemical poses to plant, animal, and human life.

We’ve been treating forests with glyphosate because it kills off broadleaf plants, allowing trees that are valuable for logging, such as lodgepole pine, to proliferate. In other words: it creates monocrops rather than the diversified forests that our landbase is supposed to support. In turn, monocropped forests are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

For decades researchers have also been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects, and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

In other words, there is overwhelming evidence that we shouldn’t be treating our land base with glyphosate. Our environment is facing many challenges in this era of climate change: we shouldn’t be adding a harmful chemical on top of that.

I’m keen to continue to work with you on this file and appreciate the input you’ve given me so far.

Conclusion:

Our province, and indeed our world, are facing more challenges than ever before. And you are at the front lines of these challenges as the environment changes in unprecedented ways. We need your perspectives; we need your expertise. Combined with scientific evidence, I believe your local and traditional knowledge holds the answers for the big problems we face.

If there’s one thing my colleagues and I have learned since the election of 2017, it’s that the best solutions come from collaboration. The best solutions come out of meaningful consultation with all stakeholders involved; from collaborating with parties with whom you may not always agree. When we stop listening to one another or overlook one group’s opinion, we impede our ability to leave a better world for future generations to inherit.

I’m hopeful that in the face of mounting environmental challenges, we’ll be able to adapt and thrive.

Thank you for your continued stewardship and guidance.