Environment Committee on May 7th, 2013

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So you're saying that industry is ahead of regulations and it's not because they have to be regulated, but because they have a stewardship initiative within themselves.

[Luc Robitaille]

Absolutely, and the more you engage with NGOs, academia, and so on, the more you learn, and you can stay ahead of regulations most of the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Toet, your time is up.

We'll move now to Monsieur Pilon.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Robitaille.

Given that your work also involves quarries, I was wondering if you have ever heard about the Carré Laval, in Laval. It is a quarry that has been closed. There were 30 to 40 feet of water in the bottom. When the subway was built, any extra material was put in that hole. Currently, the city does that any time it needs to dig.

What do you think about that kind of quarry rehabilitation?

A few months ago in fact, people were thinking of building a 10,000-seat arena on that site but they have since changed their minds. What do you think would have happened if they had gone ahead with that?

[Luc Robitaille]

It is difficult to say, especially when you are working in urban areas. Often businesses will have their idea of how to redevelop a site but the city will have a completely different idea. We also have a quarry in Laval but it is still a working quarry. We have already started working on rehabilitation, precisely in order to find sustainable solutions for the community.

Previously we used to draw up our own plans but we have decided to work with communities from the outset. Every five years, we consult the community in order to ask them what they feel is the best way to use that site in the future.

Some things are no longer done the way they used to be. Landfills are completely different now. The same is true of quarry rehabilitation.

Biodiversity never used to be a factor. You simply reforested the site. Now we try to improve ecosystem quality even in urban areas.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

The fact of the matter, though, is that there was already 30 to 40 feet of water at the bottom of that quarry. What do you think will happen?

[Luc Robitaille]

It is difficult to answer that question because I am not familiar with that particular site. So I cannot tell you which technical solution will be required. On the other hand, it is clear that longstanding problems are going to have to be resolved.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Wallis, do you think that some areas should be fully protected and that they should not be used for industry or even agriculture?

[Cliff Wallis]

I don't know about nothing, but certainly what I call industrial scale harvest, industrial development, is incompatible with some species like caribou and sage grouse. I think the research is quite clear on that point, and it does contribute to our protection of biodiversity, if we protect large areas for those species.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Robitaille, there are witnesses who appeared before this committee who advocated for development at any cost. They did not feel that conservation should be a priority at all.

Can you tell us why it is in businesses' interests to respect biodiversity?

[Luc Robitaille]

That is exactly the purpose of the standard that is currently being drafted. Originally the organization responsible for this was the SERA but it is now called the Cornerstone Standards Council. The intent is to designate areas where there should be no activity whatsoever and to draft rules on how to develop areas where there will be development.

The areas for our company's purposes are often urban or at the periphery of urban areas. In many cases, these are not green fields or forests. They are areas where there is agriculture or second- or third-generation forest.

Proper rehabilitation often leads to better diversity than in what was there before our activities. That is what we are integrating into our model. We are determining which areas should not be used, how we should proceed, and what we should leave behind after we have finished our use of the area.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would like to come back to Mr. Wallace now.

How would you describe Canada's current efforts in the area of conservation? Do you think they are sufficient or insufficient?

[Cliff Wallis]

I think we're trying, but we're certainly not meeting what the people of Canada have said they want. Provincial and federal governments had set targets, and whether they're IUCN or other targets, whether it's species at risk, we're not meeting our commitments there. So I think on that level we're not doing enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Pilon. Your time is up.

We'll move now to Mr. Storseth for five minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wallis, I do apologize, but I have only five minutes this round, so we're going to have to go a little more quickly.

When you talk about the people of Canada knowing what they want, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm from northeastern Alberta. When we talk about caribou habitat, could you talk to me about what you see as the root causes—I'm hesitant to get into root causes these days—of the problems with caribou, particularly those caribou?

[Cliff Wallis]

Caribou are facing an onslaught in Alberta of the double jeopardy of large-scale forest extraction as well as oil and gas development. The layering of those two things on the landscape is just too much for them, so their populations are declining. As I said, the oil and gas industry in western Alberta tried to do it through best management practices and through rearranging their footprint, and they failed. They acknowledge that failure.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It has nothing to do with the fact that these caribou are very susceptible to disease and that they only breed every three years? Those are not natural issues for these caribou?

[Cliff Wallis]

There are many issues that lead to it, but the ultimate cause is the industrial development on the landscape. The proximate cause may be a wolf killing them because of the way the landscape has been changed. There are many reasons for caribou decline but the ultimate cause—and industry agrees with this—is industrial development. The question is how we rearrange our affairs on that landscape to protect as many caribou populations as possible.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So you would agree though that the fact that they breed every three years is a problem for maintaining their—

[Cliff Wallis]

I'm saying there are biological factors, but that's not the caribou's fault. You still have to go to the ultimate cause of the decline. That's like saying our bodies don't tolerate smoking very well....

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So if industry is the cause, then for these 148 caribou that exist on the air weapons range in northeast Alberta, the 500-pound bombs dropping in the area aren't a problem? The problem is the industrial development that happens?

[Cliff Wallis]

Well, I'm not going to comment specifically on the bombing, but I'm saying that for the vast majority of caribou in Alberta, it is industrial development.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

But we're talking about two particular.... In your AWA press release you talk about the caribou in northeastern Alberta and the caribou of northwestern Alberta, the Little Smoky caribou. In northeastern Alberta, you state there is 64% industrial disturbance. I'd ask you to tell me what your definition of industrial disturbance is, because the military tracks this very vigorously as the majority of the habitat is on an air weapons range. They say it's closer to 17%.

[Cliff Wallis]

Well, you have to separate out northeastern Alberta from the military range. If you look at Global Forest Watch's report, the government's own study on the Athabaskan regional plan, and even Shell's own study, they show that the industrial footprint exceeds what caribou can tolerate on the landscape. It's not any one study. It's not just the AWA. There's a clear message there that we've exceeded the amount of footprint on the landscape that caribou can tolerate in virtually every caribou range in Alberta.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Now you're talking about the caribou habitat north of the air weapons range, because that's where it runs up there. I'm assuming you have been up there. I've been up there hunting and fishing. To me it looks like a fairly pristine wilderness other than some seismic up there.

I guess I have one more question for you regarding your call for a moratorium on development. Are you suggesting that we should have a complete moratorium on oil sands development, especially on the in situ oil sands development, which has far less environmental footprint on the landscape than does, say, the type of development that you would see in Fort McMurray? If that's what you're asking for, what I don't understand is where the balance comes from that, especially since we know that these caribou do have issues when it comes to breeding.

My last question is whether you are familiar with the studies that have been done up on 4 Wing Cold Lake as well as the studies that that were done around Goose Bay when it comes to the supersonic flight overpasses by military jets having been shown to actually increase the sexual desires of caribou and actually get them breeding even more often.