Environment Committee on May 9th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Pryce, did you want to respond to this? You have time for a very short response.

[David Pryce]

Thank you.

The industry is certainly supportive of the notion of biodiversity and biodiversity management. We invest in the Alberta biodiversity management institute. We know that the breadth of management strategy around all species is probably a better and more efficient path to securing our social license to access to the land.

Certainly it is a business value that I think we support, and I think it is an environmental value that provides for a more efficient path to managing for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We'll move now to Mr. Leung, for five minutes.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are addressed generally to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Over a period of 30 to 40 years, since 1970 to the present, and having visited Fort McMurray, parts of Calgary, and also southern California, I've noticed that best practices for soil or land remediation have been used by many of these producers of petroleum products. Over that period, I've also noticed that they have made efforts to introduce species or at least provide safe remediated land for species.

Perhaps you can share with the committee how the efforts of your association in any of the petroleum-producing areas have brought back species like the northern shrike, the boreal owl, and perhaps the northern bison.

[Bob Bleaney]

Mr. Chair, I'll pass that one to my colleagues. I know they have some good examples.

[David Pryce]

Thank you for the question.

Probably the species that are attracting the most attention from our industry right now are caribou, sage grouse, swift fox, and grizzly. We have been investing in the research through third-party entities to validate the populations, the ranges, how the ranges are being used. We use that information to do project planning so we can avoid critical areas while still enabling us to do that work. So, for example, the Foothills Research Institute in Alberta has done the work on the grizzly. The caribou companies are doing experimental projects around calf-penning with the blessing of the government. They're doing research on best practices, not only to understand what and where the animals are but what activities that we undertake are influential in a negative sense, so we can avoid them and look for alternative access.

In other words, if we know where their calving is and when it occurs, we will put a temporal management strategy into our business plans to stay out of there at those particular times. Those are some of the examples.

As an example, as an industry we've committed up to $2 million a year to research caribou in northeastern B.C. to help us better understand how to manage that species and to help the crown and the Government of British Columbia provide guidance around our use of that land.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I'm pleased to hear that. Do you also submit this empirical and statistical information to other environmental groups and the public in general?

[David Pryce]

Yes, institutes like the Biodiversity Monitoring Institute is a stakeholder group we participate in. The Foothills Research Institute is a science-based organization and they are third-party, so we certainly encourage them to make that data available in a broad sense as well so scientists from other areas can also make use of that information.

I think it gets to one of the earlier questions. We think there is a need to have a better roll-up of this kind of information because there is good information out there that I think the science community would appreciate and benefit from.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I applaud you for putting the dollars behind good corporate citizenship.

My next question is for the Canadian Nuclear Association. In your attempt to site nuclear reactors, how widely do you consult the groups that are impacted? I'm thinking specifically of aboriginal groups, local inhabitants, the scientific community, and people who may be stakeholders. How wide is that consultation? In the absence of legislation this is purely a measure of good corporate citizenship.

[Heather Kleb]

Our public consultation approach is very comprehensive, and it's also proactive. Obviously in the early stages of the development of a new project or facility we enter the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, which requires complete transparency throughout the process.

Prior to siting waste management and other facilities I would describe the consultation process as exhaustive.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

So in many ways—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Your time is up. Time flies when you're having fun.

We are going to move now to Madame Quach and Ms. Leslie to share five minutes.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just come back to the question that was left hanging.

Dr. Whitton, you talked about activities that contribute to habitat destruction, including energy and oil development and mining. You talked about regulations and sustainable job creation for the long term.

How can we prevent this type of development, which is growing, from causing the planet's temperatures to increase another 2 degrees, which would affect habitat? Do you have any recommendations?

[Dr. Jeannette Whitton]

As my colleague mentioned, we're not climate scientists per se, so those sorts of questions are best addressed by people who specialize in those areas. As I also said, there are really only two places to affect the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. One is outputs and one is sequestration. I think it is obvious outputs are outstripping the ability of the planet to sequester. It's not sufficient simply to enhance sequestration. It's unlikely to actually reverse the process, so we have to look to outputs.

In terms of the impacts on habitat, those are a little bit slower to come. We're seeing those threats, climate change in particular, appear as specific threats mentioned in assessing species at risk a little more frequently as time goes on. Again, we have to specifically understand what we mean by the impacts of climate change. Is it storm surges, is it temperature per se, is it shifts in the distribution of habitats that will limit the ranges of species, for example in alpine habitats?

Understanding the specific impacts of climate is important for specific cases, as it is with all species at risk. We can't take a habitat equals recovery approach. We have to understand what the specific threats, and specific impacts and limiting factors are.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I would now like to hand things over to my colleague Megan.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks.

I have a question continuing with Ms. Otto and Ms. Whitton.

I'm not feeling great this morning so I've been out of the room a little bit, so my apologies in advance if this has already been addressed.

We've had a number of industry groups here, a number of scientists like yourselves and folks working with wildlife organizations. There seems to be a disconnect around SARA, where a lot of the industry groups are saying things need to change because SARA isn't working. The wildlife groups and scientists predominantly are saying SARA only needs to be enforced, that there's nothing wrong with this legislation.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think it's a mischaracterization because, as I've already alluded to, in 2009 and 2010 when we had a study of SARA there were a great many scientists and environmental individuals, including people for example—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Woodworth, your point is well taken. I think it's a matter of debate.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's simply that we shouldn't mislead the witnesses with a false premise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I will allow Ms. Leslie to complete her question and then proceed.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks. I'm only speaking about the testimony we've had here, not from 2009.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that disconnect. What is happening here?

[Dr. Sarah Otto]

Implementation is a huge problem. I think SARA could be implemented if there were the political will to do that. So to some extent, I guess, I throw the question back to you. I have been very concerned when files are sitting on environmental ministers' desks and not moving, some for over three years. I don't know why. Maybe you can give us some insight.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I wish I could.

Ms. Whitton, do you have any thoughts about the disconnect here?

[Dr. Jeannette Whitton]

I think part of the disconnect is in some ways semantic. I think when we talk about changes to SARA, what the scientific community is generally not in favour of is changes to the legislation itself. There's no evidence that we can find, in looking at the enactment, the enforcement, the implementation of SARA, that there are structural problems with the legislation itself.

What we see instead is that there are challenges with implementation and a lack of policy development. That does not require amendments to SARA. That could be done outside the scope of amendments, for example, with a policy to speed up various processes. There's nothing limiting the development of additional policies around that. So I would look for any evidence that there are structural problems with SARA. We can't find it.

What we see instead are challenges with implementation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Time is up on that round, Ms. Whitton. Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Toet.