Fisheries Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Paul Sprout]

I observed that in the minutes of the last meeting and was stunned to know my bonus was tied to how many permits we might authorize. That is simply incorrect. In this case, I entered into an accord with the deputy minister that sets out some broad objectives for me, things like managing fisheries in a sustainable way and so forth. It is true I have that kind of arrangement, and I am responsible for adhering to these public objectives, but I can say unequivocally that allegation is false, baseless, and is of no merit.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Let's go back to the other issue.

In your own expectations and from what was based on the CEAA evaluations, were you expecting to lose a bunch of fish? You say CEAA was based on what actually...a causeway being built and the water being...? At the very most you would expect the water flows you got at least once every four years, so you should have expected the possibility of what you got in terms of water flow. You must have been expecting, then, a certain dewatering of redds, or weren't you? I mean, did this catch you by surprise?

[Paul Sprout]

From my perspective.... First of all, that's a very good question.

We did not anticipate that we would have the dewatering effects that I think we observed. The issue is we have to tease apart to what effect the causeway was the cause of that versus the natural flow reduction. That being said, we realize that the installation of the causeway clearly affected passage of water through the causeway and we have to determine to what effect that disruption dewatered gravel sites further downstream that ultimately were affected. That is the part of the review we're looking at now.

You asked the question, though—I think a bigger question--which is: in allowing for operations of gravel removal on the Fraser River, do you do so knowing that there may be some impacts? I would shape the question even more broadly. The reality is that when we develop habitat anywhere, we are trying to minimize the impacts of that habitat on the resource; we're always trying to minimize and, where possible, avoid impacts. But there's always a risk. When you develop habitat, whether it's to construct a bridge over a river, a road along the river, a house near a river, or a well that draws water from an aquifer, in all those instances you are managing risk, always.

In the case of gravel removal, what we are trying to do is minimize the risk. We try to have the gravel operation occur at a time of the year where the impact on, in this case salmon, is made as small as possible. We're trying to have the operation occur in such a way that the chances of its affecting fish are low. But short of having no gravel operations, no road development, no bridge crossings, it's hard to say that there is ever zero risk. So we try to manage the risk. We try to come up with something we think makes sense, through a scientific evaluation and a scientific base.

We're always conscious that ultimately we're trying to manage risk and arrive at something we think is reasonable, given that we have conflicting objectives. On the one hand, we have provinces and municipalities that are worried their communities are going to be flooded; that the gravel accumulation will cause the river to divert, to go into channels and into sloughs and into fields and into farmers' areas, and so forth, and disrupt crops and cause huge economic damage. On the other hand, as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we're concerned about the preservation and management of Pacific salmon.

So it's a constant balance we are trying to find. We believe we arrived at a reasonable balance with our understanding of the science in this particular case. But as we've noted, we're prepared to learn from that experience.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Do you have any questions, James? You have two minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Only two minutes? Okay.

My first question might have been addressed. I missed the first remarks; I think questions were already under way. This is for Mr. Wild.

There were some concerns expressed—and perhaps you've already addressed this—by Dr. Rosenau that you made some remarks in the media concerning the motivation of his group's concern about gravel extraction; that they are motivated by other issues than biology: by racial concerns. Is that correct? Perhaps you have already addressed this, but was that an accurate assessment of what happened in the media? We around this table recognize that once in a while we are misquoted or misunderstood by the media. Could you clarify this for me first, please?

[Jim Wild]

That was reported in the Chilliwack paper by a reporter whom we've actually talked to for several years in the area. I might preface my comment by.... I think Marvin also noted that occasionally reporters twist the stories a bit. In my opinion, that was the case here. In that report there were quotes from Dale Paterson, who actually happened to be on holidays for two weeks at the time.

There is a theme in there, though, that is not totally unrelated. We have set up a forum, through the Fraser Basin Council, for sport fishermen and first nations to talk and have a dialogue away from the river, to help settle down some of the issues in the area. The reporter in this case was quite aware of that issue. He's a local reporter in the Chilliwack area. I think this report came out cobbling together some information from a few of his discussions over the time.

I at no time made any critical comments about Marvin or specific individuals at all.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for clarifying that for us. Because time is short I'll move right on to this other issue about water.

Engineering is challenging, especially with something the size of the Fraser River and dewatering concern challenges. You mentioned risks, and we understand certainly that all risks have to be compared with other risks in a risk-benefit analysis, obviously. But the estimate that there were millions of fry that were killed—I think the estimate was something like two million based on the redds they examined and so on—is that, in your opinion, an accurate assessment?

In the overall scope we know that pink are very prolific, as I understand it, being a two-year fish and low end. The river does change, water levels are coming and going, which is why you evaluate them. Is that an accurate assessment of the number of fry that might have been lost? In perspective of how many young fry there might be in the river system, what percentage are we talking about here?

[Paul Sprout]

That is part of the review: we've been asked to look at and to see whether we can answer that question. I would start off by noting the following. It's going to be challenging to precisely answer that. The reason is that we know the natural flow in the river is dropping anyway. For example, above and below the site we're talking about this morning, there is natural dewatering occurring. Salmon redds are being exposed naturally and there is some natural loss occurring.

The issue in Big Bar is to what extent the causeway exacerbated that, and therefore what could we identify as lost to Big Bar. That is part of the review, and I don't have a specific answer.

I can say this about pink salmon in the Fraser River: the population is at an historical high. We've had very strong returns of pink salmon to the lower Fraser River for the last decade and a half. The population from a conservation perspective, in contrast with other salmon populations, is in very good condition. That's not to justify this or to rationalize it; it's just to provide a bit of background. That particular population in the lower Fraser is doing extremely well. In fact, often we have additional fish that could be harvested based on the strength of that population.

We will be looking at trying to answer that question more precisely, but I'm unable to provide that kind of detail today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

For clarification for the committee and our further study and review of this, it would be important if you sent this information to us. The question was fairly direct: on the estimated two million young salmon killed, is that a correct assessment?

[Paul Sprout]

I appreciate that, and we will try to respond to that question, given my comments.

The second thing we'll be able to provide you at that time is information on something we are doing right now. We're doing what's called a pink downstream enumeration program, and we are actually trying to estimate how many young pink fry are migrating out of the Fraser River. We'll be able to provide you potentially the two figures: how many have left the whole system, and how many we think may have been affected by this. You'll be able to draw the comparison between the two numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Do I have time for one more?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Unfortunately, you are already over by two minutes. I allowed our witnesses to answer.

Thank you, Mr. Lunney, and thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Mr. Matthews or Mr. Cuzner, do you have any questions?

Monsieur Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I have one last question for you, since you have not answered my previous one.

Could the work that you will be doing after the fact not have been done beforehand? Could you not have done enough work previous to granting the permit in order to prevent what did happen? That is essentially the question. The department has a mandate to protect the resource. Now you are telling us that you will look into it after the harm has already been done.

Would it not be possible to undertake this type of review before the work begins to ensure that this type of situation will not be repeated? I don't think this is the first time that gravel will be removed from the Fraser river. This is not a new idea. It seems to me that the review should have happened earlier. All of the committee members are wondering how this type of thing could have occurred. With all of the tools at our disposal, in 2006, this situation could have been prevented. But the review is being carried out after the work has been done, and not before. If I understand you correctly, the department is unable to forecast, but it went ahead and built a dam. That is the problem! And to top it all off, you have not answered my question.

Does the department have enough resources to determine if this type of construction can go ahead without reducing the flow?

[Paul Sprout]

If I were to distill your question, I think what you're asking is whether we could have predicted what did happen would have happened. I think that's the essence of your question, whether we could have predicted that.

My response is that with the information we had at the time, we felt we took responsible measures that were designed to address the conditions we were facing and our understanding of the situation at the time. So with the information we had, based on the review I've spoken of plus the evaluations we made this year, we think we took the responsible measures required at the time.

Now, the question is, can we learn from that? Are there things we have learned from this experience that will help us next year or in the future when gravel removal is being considered once again?

We are going to do a review, as I've indicated, and based on that review and the recommendations that emerge, we will factor that into the future. But again, from our point of view, I think to the extent we could predict what happened and take it into consideration, we did.

What we found in the space of a week was that some of our assumptions did not prove to be valid and we did not get the flow we anticipated through the causeway. We made the adjustments and adjusted rapidly under the circumstances. Now we have to evaluate what happened and determine what we should do in the future.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Basically, the culverts should have been installed at the outset and they should have been big enough to allow enough water to flow through them. That's it, in a nutshell. The problem is that it was not done.

Is the department unable to ensure that the culverts are big enough to allow for sufficient flowthrough? There is nothing complicated about it. As a precaution, as I said earlier, the structure that is built should allow for enough water to flow through. It's elementary. And that's where the problem lies.

[Paul Sprout]

I would like to respond to that final remark, if I may.

I think in all the things we do.... We carry out a series of actions, we make decisions in hundreds and thousands of cases, and we have to make assumptions in almost all those cases before we take the action. So we make assumptions about how fish are going to behave. In this case, we make assumptions about water flow. We make assumptions about dewatering or not dewatering. All those are assumptions and then we make a decision. As a department, a responsible institution, we make assumptions. If some of those assumptions turn out to be valid, we make corrections in the future.

In my view, it's a proactive approach that acknowledges that we learn as we go. In this case, as we've indicated, we believe we took responsible measures for our decisions. That being said, we did see effects we had not anticipated. We need to learn from those effects and we need to make changes in the future.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I don't buy it. I was the mayor of a municipality and if I had acted as you did, just about every house in the area would have been flooded. It's as simple as that.

For example, when you install storm sewers, you make sure that they are big enough to accommodate the flow of rain water. Otherwise, all of the homes will be flooded. If you had been the mayor of a municipality, everyone would have been flooded out. It's as simple as that. There are no two ways about it. You start by making sure that the infrastructure will be up to the task. But that is not what you did. I can't understand the department's actions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci, Monsieur Roy.

Ms. Crowder, five minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you.

I want to come back to a comment you made about the information you had at the time and the assumptions you made. Again, I think it highlights the criticism that the commissioner made in 2004 about the inadequacy of the information the department has access to.

I have two questions for you.

I wonder if you would comment about whether additional resources are required or what is required. Clearly, this not a new decision-making process. I think it's a major concern for the committee when such a significant impact was unanticipated by the department. That's one question.

Secondly, you mentioned managing risk. Again, I'm coming back to this report. It says there were some major concerns about the fact that the Province of British Columbia had moved to a results-based process and that the department is concerned that this results-based process as set out by the province is likely to have significant impact on its own work. I wonder if there is a larger issue at play here that is impacting on the department's ability to make decisions that are not going to have unanticipated outcomes.

[Paul Sprout]

On the first question, of whether or not our resources are an issue, I don't believe that it is resources in this instance. As we've already pinpointed, it is what were the assumptions behind the decision to allow for the causeway to go in, what were the assumptions behind the view that water would be permitted to pass through with the very large rocks that form the basis of that, and so on?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but when I'm talking about resources I'm also talking about information. If you're making assumptions based on faulty information....

[Paul Sprout]

Again, I think we made assumptions about the ability of those large materials to pass through with the information that we had. It's not clear to me that this would have changed with additional information. That being said, we are looking at this, and as we've indicated, we've called for a review. One of the things we'll be looking at is the information that was used to make those decisions. Based on that assessment, I will be in a position to know whether we thought the information was adequate, or whether in fact additional information would have been required, and if so, then whether additional resources are required to support that decision. I think the review itself will answer that question, and we're open to that. That would be the right approach at this time.

With respect to the results-based approach, again my response is that it is designed to try to put the emphasis on how the department utilizes resources in the areas that have the highest impact to the resource itself. It's designed to acknowledge that we have to prioritize how we do our work to ensure that we achieve the best value for Canadians. Again, I think the results-based approach is designed to help us do a better job.

In this particular case, with the space of time we've already referred to, the framework that was already in place, the rapidity with which we responded over the course of a one-week period, and our commitment to review, I think we've taken all the responsible measures. It's not clear to me that there's a particular issue associated with our policies, so much as it is, okay, what was the information used to make this particular decision? How valid was it relative to the assumptions that were implicit? And what can we learn from it?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Again, I wanted to clarify that the recommendation from the commissioner was that the department needed to use a risk-based approach, not just a results-based approach, as the province was moving towards. I think it's important that my colleague referred to the precautionary principle earlier and that the risk-based approach would look at the precautionary principle and at some contingency plans, in the event that things went completely off the rails.

[Paul Sprout]

I think that's fair enough. We would agree that a risk-based approach is the right approach to take. Additionally, we have acknowledged that in managing any habitat development, there's always risk, and we have to try to minimize it. That point is well made, and we would not dispute that.