Environment Committee on May 30th, 2013

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

So the final piece is government?

[Mark Hubert]

Yes.

Across the land base it's well understood that government is the final decision-maker so we're hoping for something very soon coming out of Minister Orazietti's office.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Good luck.

I have a question for the electricity association and the Canadian Wildlife Federation, but I'll start with the electricity association. It's a controversial topic, but we're here to explore ideas, so why not? I have the Ontario power authority here.

When it comes to large-scale hydro, there is a lot of tension there about what is the best way to go. I am of the personal opinion that if we're taking greenhouse gases offline by displacing coal plants for example—as with Muskrat Falls—that's a positive step for the environment. But there are a lot of environmental organizations that would slap my hand over that statement because there are some pretty big environmental impacts, particularly to habitat, when you're looking at large-scale hydro and the land mass you're actually eating up with those projects. There is a real tension, a real balance there.

I wonder if you can share with us some of your thoughts on habitat conservation when it comes to new hydro projects. How are you handling this? What are the best practices?

[Jim Burpee]

I think part of it goes to where we're talking about the ability to offset and create other habitat and to understand the balance between the changes you're actually creating.

Some of the current large ones.... For Muskrat Falls, for example, there is not—to use our word—a “significant” amount of flooded area. It's the same if you look at the map of the hydro...there is not.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

People would disagree with you.

[Jim Burpee]

From projects that were done in the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies, there was more impact. Even in those cases the ecosystem actually adjusts and you might be changing from more river base to a lake base. You create a different kind of habitat, but if you consider the whole scheme of things, you're still in balance.

I think the most important consideration for large-scale hydro is the ability to store water and manage it. The fact of how it works compared to other renewables, such as wind and solar, which are non-dispatchable...nothing works. The best battery possible is large hydro.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll have to maybe add to that later on.

We're going to move now to Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses all for being here and contributing your expertise to this important discussion.

We've covered a lot of territory already, but I want to go back over a few things to try to clarify a few points. We've had some discussion about prescriptive government mandates that create a certain set of challenges. I think I heard that most clearly from the Mining Association, where you have a relatively small footprint. If there happens to be a species at risk, trying to mitigate that on the footprint of the mine site is a significant challenge.

I think I heard you say, give us an example of an enormous amount of money spent trying to mitigate something on a small footprint that might have been much better utilized if a broader application or a little more flexibility had been in place.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on the work that's gone towards a sustainable mining program. But what kind of a role do you think the mining industry can and should play in habitat conservation in Canada? Second to that might be, what tools would be necessary to achieve that in terms of the best ecosystem outcomes?

[Pierre Gratton]

There are a couple of points. If you're developing a mining project and there's a species at risk in the area, that's going to be captured through the environmental assessment. It actually may be a showstopper, depending on the nature of it, to be honest, but it will be captured through the environmental assessment process one way or another.

Typically, if mines get through and they're built, one can presume that through the subsequent permitting process they have developed mitigation measures for species at risk. My comments in terms of the mining industry and regulatory approaches towards habitat conservation and mining were largely in relation to the broader footprint, whether it's species at risk or not.

The example I gave of the Ekati diamond mine, where they built this large creek diversion, that was not in response to a species at risk, that was simply to address the loss of some fish habitat as a result of the mine. It was felt at the time that significant amounts of money could have been better used not far from the mine site to actually enhance fish populations. But the way in which the Fisheries Act was applied in that particular instance, it had to be on the mine site itself.

In terms of what our sustainable mining initiative does, it builds in and helps companies develop systems for integrating biodiversity conservation into their planning, and that includes looking at your mine site and beyond, to look at opportunities to contribute to biodiversity enhancement and biodiversity protection, working with other partners. So we helped build it into the way in which mines think about their impact on the landscape.

Programs or initiatives or legislation that tie into that already built-in instinct to look at what the opportunities are around the mine would be very helpful. That's where initiatives like...and we mentioned one in here with the Rio Tinto mine in Labrador, where they've been able to partner with Ducks Unlimited and others, to actually take what was a legacy of tailings deposition into a lake and re-form it and transform it into something that could contribute to biodiversity enhancements, improved duck populations, new habitat for fish, etc. But it's allowing that to occur, to think a little outside the box, that's needed.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I think positive environmental outcomes are what we're all looking for. How do you redefine the box in order to allow that to happen? Maybe your other partners might have a comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

A short response, we're running close to the time.

[Ben Chalmers]

I think how you re-form that box is that you look at, what towards sustainable mining would call, the high end of performance; that is, you work with the local communities to identify where the real values are. What are the significant aspects of the local habitat that are important to protect?

Before I joined the Mining Association I worked for a small zinc and copper mine on Vancouver Island called Myra Falls, which is in the middle of Strathcona park, and one of the most valuable parts of the ecosystem in that park was the Roosevelt elk herd. So as a mine, we worked with a local parks advisory committee that was multi-stakeholder. We monitored the herd and we were in a unique position to do that, as the mine and the employees, because we were always there. We were able to keep very close tabs on the health of that herd and work with the park to ensure the health of that herd.

I think that's the kind of thing that can be done when you work with local communities to identify what the important aspects are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

We'll move now to Madam Quach for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here.

It is always interesting to see that it is possible for companies to make efforts to protect the planet, to fight against climate change and, at the same time, to continue to make a profit. We need to find a balance between resource development and sustainable development. We have some very concrete examples today.

I would first like to direct my questions to the representatives from the Canadian Electricity Association, Mr. Burpee and Mr. Gibson.

You talked a great deal about projects, education programs, research programs and on-the-ground monitoring programs that are effective. Thanks to those programs, you get tangible results in terms of habitat protection. It is important to explore some concepts to understand that conservation involves human intervention. Could you tell us about the usefulness of these measures, these education and research initiatives, and the conservation results you have obtained?

[Jim Burpee]

Thank you.

Dan, do you have a comment, since you've done the actual program on the education side?

[Dan Gibson]

Sure. I'll speak quickly.

First and foremost, OPG always looks for partners with expertise in this field. We generally do not like to reinvent the wheel.

I'll use the Atlantic salmon reintroduction as a prime example. Education is fundamental to the program. On classroom involvement, I think there are over 100 schools that are raising juvenile Atlantic salmon in the classrooms. It hit the news in the last few weeks that there was a large release of the juvenile fish into the creeks throughout Toronto and southern Ontario. Each individual classroom is having each student release a single fish and is fostering that sort of long-term vision for stewardship.

It is not going unnoticed. I can't give you concrete paper facts, but I do know that it's fostering a lot of interest and it's passing on that legacy of conservation stewardship, which OPG doesn't own. We are happy to identify our partners as having important roles in that.

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

Thank you very much.

You talked about a key aspect. You indicated that all your research relies on outside expertise. We are talking about scientists and experts. You need their expertise. We must continue to encourage and fund their research to be able to base our decisions on facts.

I will now turn to Mr. Bates. You did not have time to talk about all your recommendations. I would like to give you the opportunity to do so. You used most of your time to talk about the lack of will in enforcing and implementing the law. You talked about effective protection and the measure of progress. You talked about specific numerical targets. You said that it was important to have long-term, 25-year commitments. Could you elaborate on those three aspects?

[Rick Bates]

I'm sorry, you drifted off at the end there. I didn't hear the last bit of your question, but with regard to the long-term commitment, it is a hallmark of some of the most successful conservation programs, certainly in Canadian history and in most other countries around the world. A couple of years or a handful of years just is not adequate. The long-term, 25-plus, years are what's needed.

Concerning some of the other things you've asked me to comment on that I missed, I think they were covered. Some of the things we did not get to were the use of conservation agreements. We share a lot of the same concerns and see the same opportunity around conservation agreements facilitating development and protecting species.

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

You also talked about the importance of protected area networks so that you can continue mapping activities and work on connectivity corridors. Could you give us more examples of how increased mapping and increased information flow through connectivity corridors would improve habitat conservation?

[Rick Bates]

One of the greatest difficulties in habitat conservation is that it's just very expensive. Land is expensive, and good land is even more expensive, because it tends to be in areas that are near water, which is recreational property. Good regional planning helps identify the most important areas, and that, in turn, helps conservation organizations invest their money most wisely. Planning like that is an important thing. On a big, regional basis like that, it takes a lot of time and money, and so it's not something an individual organization can typically take on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're going to have to move to our next questioner.

Mr. Storseth, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start out with Mr. Gratton. You talked about an enabling regulatory environment ensuring better outcomes when it comes to conservation of habitat. You gave the example of Rio Tinto. I know of examples with Goldcorp and Teck, and many others in Canada that have had some good results.

In your experience, with your association and your stakeholders, have you had better results with mandates prescribed by government or with those that have some flexibility and more results-based outcomes?

[Pierre Gratton]

I think our brief was pretty clear that it's always better when there's some flexibility.

I also want to be clear that flexibility doesn't mean no regulation. We're not suggesting there's no role for regulations or that it's a question of voluntary versus legal. We say this in our brief as well. It's a combination of good and effective government regulation, good practice, and flexible tools that, I think, achieves the best outcomes.

I used the example of reclamation in our brief. It's a requirement today, if you're going to build a mine, that you post assurance that the mine can be reclaimed in the event that the company ceases to exist or something like that. It's a requirement, before you start building, to have a closure plan developed and approved, which will later be revised periodically—every five years, typically.

The actual details and the implementation of that closure plan can be left to the company to allow them to work with local communities to identify the best ways to close the property afterwards and to reclaim. Local communities might have interest in the land and how it's reconfigured. There are examples in British Columbia where there's an interest in returning mines to farmland. To do that, you need that kind of information up front in order to actually plan for it down the road.

Governments can set broad parameters. You have to meet certain requirements, but you have to create the opportunity to do that in a way that leaves some room and some flexibility for the company working with local stakeholders in order to achieve that. At the end of the day, you're going to want to make sure you have a reclaimed property that meets core environmental objectives.

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

When we talked with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, particularly when it came to the mining sector, they talked about not just on-site reclamation or making sure we had habitat success and conservation on site, but also that we had it in the offsets and in, say, helping with some of the projects so they could help preserve wetlands, in regard to urban sprawl in certain urban areas. Because lots of times the footprint of the mine is only 40 or 50 years, they're actually able not just to adhere to a no net loss policy but also to reclaim all that plus help out with wetlands. You're actually moving ahead.

Is this something your industry has looked at?

[Ben Chalmers]

Yes, it is. We're certainly seeing a growth in the kinds of corporate commitments around not only no net loss but net positive gain.

In fact, I was just in Calgary yesterday at a workshop that was hosted by Shell. Shell is one of our members because of their oil sands operations. They had invited about 50 representatives from about 30 different organizations, cross-sector and multi-stakeholder, including environmental groups, to come and spend the day talking about biodiversity offsets, to try to understand what could be incorporated into an offset framework that would allow them to do just the kinds of things you were talking about.