Environment Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Yes. Every witness we've heard who has come forward on SARA has said that SARA is somehow flawed or not doing the right things the right way. However, what I'm sensing from you on the permitting and on the need to move to multi-species is that SARA goes too far, whereas every other science-based group, from SRAC to COSEWIC to some of the other stakeholders, have said that SARA is not being implemented enough, that there are too many concerns about socio-economic impacts getting in the way of the work of actually protecting species and ecosystems that those species live in.

I'm having a little bit of difficulty connecting the fact that SARA sets out to say we protect the species first and foremost, and we fly resources into that and make things happen that way, with what I'm getting from CAPP in particular, which is, well, listen, it's going to cost too much, it's too slow to implement, it's too difficult to implement, we should be more responsible for this, getting away from what the science is recommending, what the scientists are recommending as being desperately needed, regardless of socio-economic considerations.

[Journey Paulus]

I don't think that's an accurate statement on what CAPP believes. I was a biologist first, and then I became a lawyer. I became a lawyer to protect endangered species. I worked on various iterations of the bill. I completely believe that we do need to protect endangered species, but you need to create a proper framework so that it can occur. We're not trying to say that we want SARA to be diluted and ineffective; we're saying the opposite.

Right now it's ineffective. Sixty-nine species have recovery plans, out of 260. We're saying if you work with us, using the same methods as your own reports have come to, the same conclusions.... SARAC itself wanted to move towards an ecosystem-based approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired. I'm sorry, Mr. Trudeau. Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ouellet, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will raise the same issues as Mr. Trudeau but, before doing that, I want to tell you that you give me the impression that, for you, energy comes before preserving our biodiversity. This is what I get from your presentations and from your answers to Mr. Trudeau.

Let us forget rhetorical questions and deal with specific cases. This will show us how much you are willing to be engaged. You say that you want to save all species and not some species in particular. Is there a specific example where you have been able to do that?

Mr. Turk.

[Eli Turk]

Thank you.

In British Columbia, lots of efforts are being made to try to create programs that would have very positive effects but the architecture and the provisions of the Act create problems. I will let Mr. Birch give you an overview.

[Gary Birch, Senior Technical Advisor, B.C. Hydro, Canadian Electricity Association]

The main species that we've worked with is white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in the Columbia Basin. We've been working with this species really since the early 1990s. We actually discovered that there was a recruitment failure going on in the course of doing some studies for capital planning work. We expanded on life history work through the 1990s. We initiated and negotiated a recovery planning process in 2000 that led to a recovery plan in 2002. At that point in time, we started initiating fairly heavy support for the life history studies and conservation culture work that was going on the species prior to our water use plan process, which began in about 2002 or 2003.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You said that you were successful with the white sturgeon. Why can you not do that with all the species listed under the Species at Risk Act? Why do you want it to be very broad instead of specific?

[Gary Birch]

In our case today, in B.C., we've been dealing primarily with single species. However, I do know that on the Columbia Basin work, for example, in the not-too-distant future there will be a couple of other species listed. They're under review currently by COSEWIC, and we fully expect them to be raised in the listing process and to require at least management plans, if not recovery strategies. In those instances, looking at the hydrograph in the river that we partially control, we're quite sure that the needs of the sturgeon will conflict with the needs of those species. At that point in time we will have to come to some kind of arrangement on how we're going to deal with multiple species in that same river. Right now we don't have to. We can work on the sturgeon separately from any other species that is listed in that basin.

We are going to have to deal with this at some point.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Birch.

Mr. Wojczynski, you said that the situation cannot be resolved. With dams and hydroelectric facilities, technology is unable to protect endangered species. There have been many technological developments.

Is it because you do not believe anymore that technology will be able to protect those species?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Thank you for that question.

There are many technologies being applied to protect fish, both those that are at risk and those that are not. We are doing a lot of work to provide alternate habitats and improve habitats in other parts of the river. There are many different techniques. The problem with the incidental take is that you will have individual fish.

Let's use the example of lake sturgeon. Lake sturgeon are in the process of being listed in Manitoba right now. We stock tens of thousands of sturgeon ourselves. We're already members of stewardship boards. We're doing all kinds of research and undertaking initiatives and developing new technologies, but it's inevitable that there will be, for instance, some baby sturgeon or very small sturgeon that, when the rivers are flowing—even though you may have fish screens in front of the dams, even though you may have water passages, even though you may put ultrasonic techniques in to scare fish away—are going to go through the dam or propellors or turbines--even if they're fish-friendly turbines--and be damaged or killed. It is inevitable.

We are already undertaking measures--and want SARA to be changed so we can have authorization to do this--so that overall the sturgeon will be better off with what we're doing than worse off. But it will be inevitable that occasionally an individual member of the species will be killed by accident one way or another. It would be physically impossible to stop any fish from ever being killed in there, but we can help the overall species, including lake sturgeon, to do better than they would have.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Miller, you said that voluntary measures are more effective than enforced measures. However, we have not heard of many voluntary measures that were more effective than regulatory measures.

Could you give me a specific example, especially relating to species at risk?

[Peter Miller]

One of the things we've learned over the years in the development of oil field operations is that the activities we undertake, and in particular cut lines through the forest—straight lines where seismic operations run—create an advantage to predators, to wolves, to hunt the caribou. We didn't understand this at first, years ago, but we understand now that the predators, the wolves, hunt on line of sight, and they see the caribou. So an easy measure, once we understood that problem, was to create breaks in the lines so that they didn't run extensively the way they have in the past. Again, that's a voluntary measure that came out of just understanding the implications of our activities.

You asked generally what we're going to study. We've done extensive work on grizzly bears. Our industry has done extensive work on woodland caribou and on mountain caribou to understand the effects of our operations. When a major project goes through an approval process, we spend tens of millions of dollars assessing and understanding and engaging consultants to develop mitigation plans. None of those are regulated, but they're developed and proposed by the applicant.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

And you think that you could do that to in the case of fish?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Non, vous avez fini. I'm sorry.

Mr. Hyer, the floor is yours.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Good morning to all of you.

Like Ms. Paulus, I am a wildlife biologist ,with a particular expertise in woodland caribou. If that is helpful to any of you, let me know. I am also a businessperson. I have three small businesses and I strongly agree with your basic premise that cooperation is a lot better than non-cooperation, that carrots are better than sticks, wherever possible.

As a biologist, it seems to me that for most species at risk we need two strategies. We need a long-term strategy, which is mostly habitat protection, and a short-term strategy, which ensures the survival of gene pools and populations. I hate to see us being drawn into choosing one or the other; we really need both. Similarly, we need a long-term plan to make our industries more sustainable, but we also need to hang on to a few endangered species as well. So striking a balance is a good thing.

I noted what I think is an inconsistency. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers seems to be saying two things: on the one hand, you want flexibility; on the other, you want very long-term agreements so that you can do long-term planning. Those two positions are at odds. First you say that three- to five-year planning terms are too short; then you turn around and say that things change—technology changes, information changes—and we need to be flexible.

Does this seem as inconsistent to you as it does to me?

[Journey Paulus]

Through the use of adaptive management, you can have a long-term permit or agreement to allow the management, over a long-term period.... As you say, we need both short- and long-term strategies. You can have a plan to monitor the species on a regular basis and adapt to the information that comes in. Peter gave you the example of changing seismic lines. We can incorporate, in the use of a permit, continuously improving methods. We have long-term permits for all of our facilities already, and as new technologies become available we can start implementing them.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Does anybody else want to comment?

[Eli Turk]

From an electricity perspective, our capital stock turnover, the amount of our investment, and the way we are permitted through other regulatory bodies call for a longer period of time. There is not necessarily an inconsistency in wanting to have a longer horizon. There could be gates along the way that make sure you're reviewing things on a timely basis and making sure you're adapting properly. With respect to the idea of agreements under section 11, where you can have a longer-term perspective, you can develop a plan that's more appropriate for that situation. So we see it in a positive light.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I have a question for Mr. Wojczynski or other people from the hydroelectric industry.

To oversimplify, I'm a fan of hydroelectric, not everywhere but often. When you look at all the available options, it's a good one. What percentage of Canadian electrical power is hydroelectric, and what is the potential for increases? You didn't give us a percentage that we could achieve. If you did, I missed it.

[Ed Wojczynski]

It varies by a few percentage points from year to year, but today on an energy basis, 60% or just above 60% of the electrical energy produced in Canada comes from hydro power. There used to be a projection from NRCan that it was going to go down, but in more recent years that has actually been reversed and the hydro power percentage is going back up again. It is projected to continue doing that.

Secondly, in terms of how much hydro power potential we have left in Canada, our organization did an extensive survey with a consultant four or five years ago. It was a little bit surprising to find out how much technical potential there is, and I don't remember exact numbers, but if you developed all the technical potential in Canada you could have something like 350% of the amount we already have today. However, not all of that is going to be developable either, because it's on heritage rivers or very sensitive or just too expensive. So a doubling or tripling, probably closer to a doubling, is practical. Now, what would that do to the percentage of electricity generated in Canada? It would go up, obviously, but I don't have the percentage it would go to.

Once Ontario shuts down its coal, they have to find out where their alternatives are going to come from. There are real possibilities out there. I don't expect hydro will ever be 100%, and I don't think that would be desirable. You want to have a bit of a mix of resources. Hydro is a good backup for wind, for example. Also, for some baseload, like nuclear, there are some advantages to having hydro, which is flexible.

There is no optimal number I could give you, but we're unusually high in Canada compared to other countries, that's for sure.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

That caught my attention.

I have a question to any or all of you. I heard from a lot of you today that you think management of our activities is preferable to hard-core protection of habitat. That seemed to be a common theme. Are any of you willing to make a relatively strong statement in terms of when and where it's appropriate to be pretty firm on relatively pure habitat protection? Or is that anathema to everybody here?

[Peter Miller]

The one example we have already is the Cave and Basin snail. That's a species located in a very discrete area, in a national park in Banff. Absolutely, there should be complete protection of that. We've heard of specific nesting areas that are the only ones available. Absolutely, those need to be protected.

But when we're talking about species that range across the boreal forest, or that cover all the northern prairies, I think we're trying to apply the wrong concept to protection of those species. Management is a much more effective protection measure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Does anyone else want to comment on that? Mr. Hyer's time has expired, but you could have a response on that.

Mr. Birch.

[Gary Birch]

Yes, if I may. BC Hydro actually does everything it can to avoid the enforcement side of these things.

Our plans for white sturgeon have annual reviews with the recovery team in which their results and methods are all reviewed. We have regular reviews at five-year intervals. We've got a conflict resolution process in place that we deal with the regulators on, so if anything does come that we've done wrong, we can take it through a resolution process. That would be our preference as to how we deal with these things,when they do come up, if we're not proactive enough.

On the habitat side, we absolutely agree that critical habitat has to be protected where the science supports its protection. With white sturgeon, the spawning habitat and the early life history portions of their habitat in particular are critical, and those need to be protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Wojczynski.