Evidence of meeting #16 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hydro-québec.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
I'd like to call the meeting to order, please.
I would like to welcome our guests. We would like you to take the opportunity to introduce yourselves, starting with Mr. Pachano, I guess.
9:05 a.m.
Chief Roderick Pachano Cree Nation of Chisasibi
Good morning, and thank you. My name is Roderick Pachano. I am the chief of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi.
9:05 a.m.
George Lameboy Cree Nation of Chisasibi
My name is George Lameboy. I am from Chisasibi also.
9:05 a.m.
Robbie Tapiatic Cree Nation of Chisasibi
My name is Robbie Tapiatic. I'm also from Chisasibi.
9:05 a.m.
Robert Kanatewat Cree Nation of Chisasibi
My name is Robert Kanatewat, and I am also from Chisasibi.
9:05 a.m.
Alan Penn Science Advisor, Grand Council of the Crees
My name is Alan Penn. I'm an adviser to the Cree Regional Authority and, in this case, to Chisasibi as well. Thank you.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Thank you.
I understand that Mr. Pachano will make the opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.
9:05 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before this committee. Our main purpose today is to outline the problem of eelgrass decline along the eastern coast of James Bay and its impact on our community. We will also provide you with some brief explanatory background.
We represent about one-third of the Cree population on the eastern coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay. Our area is the part of James Bay that has the most eelgrass.
From different perspectives--public health, nutrition, and our desire to protect our own culture and traditions--we consider the coastal ecosystem to be something that will play a key role in our survival as communities and as a people. This is our major motivation for appearing before you today.
Within the last 30 years, the freshwater flow of Chisasibi, meaning “the great river” in English, la grande rivière in French, has doubled in size as a result of diversions for hydroelectric development. It will increase again by nearly 20% when the Rupert River diversion is completed three years from now. Much of this fresh water is being added during the winter period when fresh water forms a length a few metres thick under the coastal ice shelf.
Now, when you consider all this, this is a major diversion, one of the most significant and important in North America, and we think it has received far less attention than it deserves.
As we see it, there are good reasons to be concerned about the long-term survival of our coastal waterfowl hunt and fisheries, because of the impact of a change of this magnitude in the flow of rivers, in the winter particularly. The managed flows in the winter from the hydroelectric project can multiply the discharge by a factor of roughly 10, which is bound to affect fish habitat and the coastal ecosystem generally.
The eastern James Bay coast is home to extensive marine grasslands. These eelgrass beds, as they are known, grow in a fully marine environment in water depths of one to two metres, which is accessible to waterfowl. The eelgrass is also sometimes referred to as seagrass. It is not a weed; it is an essential part of the marine environment. The eelgrass flowers, pollinates, and sets seedlings in sea water. Growth is related to salinity as well as to other factors that affect the penetration of light into the sea water.
These beds are a key element in a coastal ecosystem. They serve as feeding grounds and nurseries for coastal fish species-- whitefish, cisco, and trout--and shellfish. And they are grazed by brant, Canada geese, and ducks.
We believe that eelgrass beds are sufficiently distinctive in this region that they should be considered by Canada as part of its international commitment to the protection of biodiversity. These beds have undergone a major decline along the coast since the river diversions for the La Grande hydroelectric project and the operation of the powerhouses, which concentrate the river flow during the winter period.
The community has seen sharp declines in waterfowl numbers along the coast in recent years and a corresponding decline in hunting success. There are also concerns about fish stocks and the rest of the food chain along the coast because of the changed flows and the loss of the eelgrass beds and the fish habitat they provide.
We have been working with specialist Dr. Frederick Short from the University of New Hampshire to try to understand what is happening. With his help, we have been conducting our own environmental surveys.
Hydro-Québec has also been carrying out surveys but does not believe that the declines are related to the hydroelectric project. However, when the changes to the project were planned in the 1980s, the possible effects on the eelgrass beds were considered in a document submitted to the Quebec government, and a dieback was predicted at that time.
Hydro-Québec thinks that a wasting disease, the result of an organism known as labyrinthula zosterae--excuse my Latin--is affecting the eelgrass beds. We have looked into this, and with the help of Dr. Short, we have come to understand that the wasting disease is not the cause of the eelgrass decline. Instead, we believe that the changes in the seagrasses are well explained by the measurements of low salinities resulting from the river diversions and the managed flow regimes during the active eelgrass growing seasons. We also understand that there are other factors involved, such as turbidity resulting from erosion and landslides along the La Grande River after the development.
We have been handicapped, though, because we have not been provided with the information by Hydro-Québec on the year-by-year monthly flows, which we need to investigate this matter further and more closely. As we understand it, the only way to mitigate this effect of freshwater flow is to reassess and redirect the seasonal distribution of flows.
Because we believe the federal government has a direct interest in and responsibility for these matters, we are pleased to have this opportunity to explain our concerns. We will provide the standing committee with maps and photographs to explain the distribution of the eelgrass beds and why we are so concerned.
We therefore propose to the standing committee that there is a need for a fresh federal perspective on the impacts of development on James Bay and Hudson Bay. In making this statement, we are echoing a recommendation made by a federal panel that in 2006 studied the diversion of the Rupert River towards the La Grande River and Chisasibi.
We enclose at the end of this written presentation a recommendation that deals directly with the subject of federal involvement and the need for a concerted effort to deal with the gaps in scientific knowledge of the James Bay and Hudson Bay region during this time of environmental change, which includes climate change.
There are several related issues. The coastal and offshore environment of Chisasibi is now included in the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which has recently received royal assent with the passage of Bill C-11. It includes an overlap agreement between the Cree and the Inuit, which incorporates much of the area of declining eelgrass beds.
We note that there are efforts being made by the first nation and Inuit communities around Hudson Bay and James Bay to use the International Polar Year as a framework and as a stimulus to develop local capacity for monitoring environmental change in this region.
It is important that both Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada understand and appreciate why these steps are being taken. We would like to see the federal government pay much closer attention to the effects of environmental change in the James Bay and Hudson Bay region, including the effects of hydroelectric development.
We found that the federal government largely ended its involvement in the study of fish and waterfowl, including the eelgrass beds, when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was concluded in 1975. This certainly was not what we expected or intended when the agreement was signed. This has left a great gap in the knowledge of many aspects of James Bay and Hudson Bay.
Chisasibi certainly does not consider that it is responsible for this situation, but it is interested in participating in monitoring aimed at a better understanding of environmental change and, where possible, at remedial action. However, this can be undertaken only if Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada both show a much greater commitment to investment in relevant research in the James Bay and Hudson Bay region.
We encourage the standing committee to recommend to both government departments that they act on the issues raised in this brief, and in particular on recommendation 34 in the Eastmain-1-A Rupert River review. We also propose that the standing committee remind both Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada about the importance of the implementation of the wildlife management regime in section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, including in particular the principle of the guaranteed level of harvest.
I would like to thank you very much.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Thank you, Chief Pachano.
Our first questions will be from Mr. Simms.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Thank you, Chief Pachano.
I want to start by asking you a pretty broad question. Perhaps this is for the benefit of all. When you harvest eelgrass, what do you use it for? That's a pretty broad question for you.
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
To answer your question directly, it is not harvested by man. It is used as feed by the animals, particular migratory birds, the brant and the Canada geese in particular. And it is also home to several species of fish and shellfish. It grows in depths of anywhere from 1 to 90 feet.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Okay.
When did you notice the disappearance? When did you first notice that there was going to be a significant disappearance of the eelgrass?
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
I'll let my colleague Mr. Lameboy answer that one.
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, in the early part of the project—this is the 1970s—when the hydroelectric project was in commission, the eelgrass was calculated back then by Environment Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service, at 250 square kilometres. It has been our knowledge that it will fluctuate. It will come and go--it will disappear, let's say, for a year, and it will come back again the following year--but it will never disappear for a period of 10 or 20 years. This is what we are experiencing now.
In 1995 we had an upshoot, an increase in density of eelgrass, and since then it has been on the decline. You see, since the commissioning of the La Grande complex, the eelgrass disappeared and then came back in 1995, I believe. Okay, let's say from 1978—
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
But did it come back to what it was before?
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
Yes, prior to the project.
As I said, Canadian Wildlife Service did the survey, flew over the section, and estimated about 250 square kilometres of eelgrass on the east coast of James Bay.
Now, if we were to go back, there is no eelgrass to write home about. There are eelgrass shoots. Yes, there is maybe a shoot every square metre, which is nothing compared to the density that existed prior to the project, when you would have a field of green, green grass like you would have on your front lawn. This is what existed prior to the project.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Can you illustrate for me how the hydroelectric project affects the eelgrass?
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
It's salinity, the increase of fresh water on the James Bay coastline.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Okay.
Now, when the hydroelectric project first started, when did you first notice a major difference in the ecosystem?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Since then, the recovery has not been sufficient at all.
9:15 a.m.
Cree Nation of Chisasibi
The biggest recovery we've had was in 1995, I believe.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Right. But in the general scheme of things, this has been devastating for the whole area?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
You talked about declining salinity, increased currents, and rising water temperatures as well.