Environment Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Ed Wojczynski]

Our experience with lake sturgeon is exactly what was said about BC Hydro.

One point that I think would be useful is that the original drafting of the legislation seems to have been focused more on terrestrial species, so the concept of critical habitat worked more effectively for something that has a nest. The fish range up and down the river, and they don't typically stay in one place, ever. But there are, as was just said, some very special circumstances that become critical, like the spawning, and that is what you would protect, very specially.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warawa, you're going to wrap us up on the seven-minute round.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. It is very interesting to hear a real, practical industrial perspective on the impact of SARA and about some of your challenges and recommendations.

The importance of certainty within the industry to see investments in technologies that are using renewable fuels and hydroelectric was touched upon. We've just come back from a study in the oil sands. We went to Fort Chipewyan, and there was a major focus on the oil sands being a cause of a lot of the issues they're dealing with. We're continuing that study next week. One of the issues was water levels in Fort Chipewyan. Some were focused on the oil sands as the cause. As we heard from more witnesses, it became convincing to me that the W.A.C. Bennett Dam may have been one of the major causes of changes affecting the levels. Hydroelectric projects can have consequences that may not be evident until years later.

For the duration, the consultation is where I'd like to focus my questioning.

Madam Paulus, you commented on the importance of consultation with industry. We are looking at recovery strategies and at very prescriptive timelines. Because of those tight timelines, often the people on the front line--industry--are not being consulted in an adequate way. We consult science, we consult the aboriginal communities, but I think I heard you say that we're not consulting you on the front lines--industry--which is creating uncertainty.

As we want to move to cleaner, better technologies, that means investments. How important is the consultation process, and how important is it that SARA have realistic timelines? That seems to be a common complaint as we're doing this legislative review. How important are those timelines, and how important is it to consult you?

[Journey Paulus]

Maybe I can give an example to illustrate it clearly. We were just involved in a hearing for an area that has about 18 species. At the hearing, we found out that a number of these recovery strategies are going to be drafted in the next year. That type of information could impact how we propose activities, where we drill, what types of management activities we'd like to engage in, and what types of studies we could do.

We currently fund a number of studies, for example, on Ord's kangaroo rat, on burrowing owls, and on a number of other species. If you told us in advance that you're working towards getting a recovery strategy for Sprague's pipit, then maybe we'd adjust our research priorities for that time period to also improve the science that's going into....

Projects get delayed, too, when you can't figure out whether this area is going to be protected. The sage grouse, for example, is being looked at for protected critical habitat. Should we be waiting? What area is going to be active? What area can't be active? It's hard to plan your activities on a long-term basis without knowledge of what's going to be happening in the landscape.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Birch, maybe you too can comment on the hydroelectric perspective. Are you being adequately consulted?

[Gary Birch]

I would say that more recently it has dramatically improved, at least in British Columbia. When the recovery strategy for white sturgeon was first in draft form, which would have been around 2006 or 2007, there was no consultation with industry whatsoever in the drafting of that plan or in the recovery potential assessment that came with it. We didn't even get a chance to comment on it until science reviewed it at their PSARC review, a review they undertake each summer of some of these things.

Since there was a delay in issuing that recovery strategy and it has been brought around again, we have been consulted. We can debate whether it's adequate or not, since our comments often aren't listened to, but generally I would say that we are adequately consulted now, and I think that's a credit to DFO's efforts to improve its delivery of SARA.

If I might just make a comment to the timeline issue, we're all arguing for longer timelines on permits, etc., but we're not foolish enough to assume that those kinds of permits would go on for 25 or 50 years without review. We fully expect in our case, with white sturgeons, that there will be five-year reviews at the very least, and in our latest negotiations over conservation agreements, we're in the middle of those negotiations.

We're talking about fairly significant reviews in about 10 or 15 years, so the agreement would go on, but there would be a substantial review at some significant point, at which point we would completely revisit the conditions and deliverables associated with that ongoing agreement. So we think there are ways to build in adaptive management while at the same time delivering long-term permits.

[Ed Wojczynski]

I think the amount of consultation will vary from region to region. In the Prairies, in Manitoba, our experience recently is that when recovery strategies and action plans are being developed, there is good consultation. There is a fair bit of consultation. We may not always agree with all the decisions, but there is consultation.

Where there wasn't as much consultation as we think would be useful was in the earlier COSEWIC process, when the scientific analysis was happening. We're not suggesting that socio-economics be brought into that. It shouldn't. We think that should be kept separate. But particularly when you have major organizations that have done a lot of research, or do a lot of resource management--and we use Hydro-Québec or others as examples--they have a lot of information, and often when the scientific process for the listing is happening, they don't access that information. We would be glad to provide it, obviously, and they would use it independently, but we feel that there could be an improvement there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

We're going to move to a five-minute round. I do ask all witnesses to keep your comments as concise as possible. The more succinct you are in your responses, the fairer it is to all the witnesses at the table. We have to get around the table to ensure all our members have a chance to participate in this discussion.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much. It's a very interesting discussion, but it's one that I find is very difficult to really get a handle on, personally.

Someone mentioned--or all of you mentioned--that permits are too short-term and therefore they have to be renewed frequently. Is that correct?

[A witness]

Yes

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Have there been cases where a permit has been up for renewal but was not renewed because of the presence of an endangered species, or are these permits sort of automatically renewed generally?

[Gary Birch]

The only permits we have currently are research permits, and they are renewed reasonably automatically. We have to have discussions about what we're going to deliver, etc., but they're generally renewed. I don't believe any of us has any of the incidental effects permits currently. Some of our colleagues in British Columbia have actually applied for those permits.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm sorry, what is an incidental effects permit?

[Gary Birch]

It's under section 73, and the three-year permits can be either for research for the benefit of the species or for incidental effects. It means that if there is incidental harm or mortality to the odd individual, it's allowed, provided a series of conditions are approved.

Some of our colleagues--not BC Hydro but other power companies in B.C.--have applied for those, and they've been unable to obtain them so far. So as far as I know, there are no current permits. The hydroelectric industry is basically, in terms of not having permits, out of compliance right now. We at BC Hydro have been working for three years to try to get into compliance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So there are project being postponed at the moment in the hydroelectric industry because the permitting process is not advanced enough. Is that the case?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Well, I guess there are two situations. The bigger concern right now is the existing system. We have all these existing projects, many of which have been built and licensed in later years, that have full-scale environmental assessments, full-scale consultation and habitat reviews, and everything. Then when the species is listed later, this project that was in compliance with everything all of a sudden becomes potentially not in compliance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is there no grandfathering of any kind?

[Ed Wojczynski]

No.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Not even in practice?

In practice, if it were found that the LG-2 facility in northern Quebec was having a deleterious impact on a species of fish that had just been declared endangered, I have a hard time imagining that this facility would be shut down. Maybe your concerns are legitimate.

[Ed Wojczynski]

DFO would be the one dealing with this. DFO would be reasonable in the sense that they wouldn't say, “Well, okay, now legally you're not in compliance, so you have to shut everything down.”

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Did they propose a remediation plan?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Technically, we are legally not in compliance in that situation. There isn't a good mechanism to get us in compliance, because all you have are these three-year permits. We may look at doing something, but the permit that would put us back in compliance is only good for three years.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

One of you suggested that you would like longer permits, but you would still like these permits periodically reviewed.

[Ed Wojczynski]

We recognize that if there's going to be a longer-term permit, let's say, related to the life of the species or the life of the facility, as the environment changes, as the population of that species changes--gets better or gets worse--as new information and new technologies arrive, you'd want to look again at the situation and renew it. So you would have an automatic renewal scheme or review scheme where you have some certainty because you have a permit, but then there's a structure. You have objectives and you would review every five years or so: How is it going? Are the species doing better? Did you do what you said you were going to do? Do you need to change what you're doing? That would make sense.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I see.

Mr. Birch, in relation to critical habitat--and correct me if I'm wrong--it sounded like your definition of “critical habitat” is really spawning grounds. As I say, I may have misinterpreted you.