Environment Committee on May 30th, 2013

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thanks.

Mr. Burpee, I think Canadians would be quite surprised at what you were saying in terms of the unintended consequences of environmental laws that were written without being clearly thought through.

You made the point about how current conservation agreements actually increase the legal risk to a developer or a company, and with the inevitable result that species conservation, habitat conservation efforts are actually diminished because of that ostensibly sound conservation policy. Can you expand on that and give some specific examples?

[Jim Burpee]

There were a few. We submitted a brief to Minister Kent last month with the Canadian Hydropower Association that had a number of actual examples of where we're working on conservation agreements with communities and other stakeholders. Especially in the hydroelectric context, there are many users of a river system. There are cases of white sturgeon on the Columbia River where under the act, basically, you cannot harm one sturgeon, whereas in reality it's the type of thing in terms of offsets or other ways of either offsetting or replacing habitat, or other actions to help promote the reintroduction or the health of sturgeon in general.

You're spending a lot of money working with a lot of people, but if you're not getting that recognized within a species at risk context and having that compliance, at some point you ask is it worth doing all that if you still have some risk of being charged under the act or sued by someone because there was some incidental harm to a sturgeon.

We're looking at improving the lot of white sturgeon on the Columbia River as opposed to specific harm to a single sturgeon that was incidentally hurt at the place.

There are other examples. Lake sturgeon with Manitoba Hydro on the Nelson River you're probably familiar with. There are the inner Bay of Fundy salmon in Nova Scotia and the work Nova Scotia Power is doing. On the bird side, there is the piping plover in Saskatchewan. All those utilities involved have been working with numerous stakeholders and have really good working plans, but they're wondering why they are doing all these efforts if they still have the risk of violating the Species At Risk Act as it currently stands.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Bates, as the head of a conservation group, would you support efforts to indemnify companies who in very good faith enter into conservation agreements and are seen delivering real, on-the-ground conservation results?

[Rick Bates]

I think there are ways of using some of the existing pieces within the legislation, like conservation agreements, that would facilitate that. There are also other options. In the United States, for example, they have what are called “safe harbor agreements”. They are similar to conservation agreements under section 11, but they allow a landowner or a project developer to enter into an agreement with an NGO, where the property owner or developer receives assurances that if they fulfill the conditions of that agreement, they won't be required to do any additional management activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sopuck, for those questions.

We move now to M. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our guests for their wonderful presentations today.

I would also like to congratulate the witnesses from the Canadian Electricity Association and the Forest Products Association of Canada for talking about the fight against climate change and for highlighting the importance of a national conservation plan, more specifically a terrestrial habitat conservation plan.

Let me point out that it would be really embarrassing if the final report didn't include a whole chapter on the importance of our responsibility to continue the fight against climate change. I think climate change has a direct impact on habitats. Just think of droughts, floods and other climate change-related phenomena.

That is why I would like to tell you a little story about the fight against climate change.

In 2006, the late hon. Jack Layton introduced a bill, which had to be reintroduced in 2009. Unfortunately, that bill, introduced by a democratically elected man, was defeated by the Senate whose members were not elected. That is a major concern for the NDP. The result was completely anti-democratic. That is why, even today, we are very upset with the Senate.

Recently, my colleague Megan Leslie did a great job introducing a motion that explains how an increase of 2^oC could be very dangerous for companies like yours. An increase like that can have an impact on your production and productivity. Unfortunately, the other parties still voted against the motion once more.

I would like to hear what the witnesses from the Canadian Electricity Association have to say and how the fight against climate change is important to them. For instance, I am thinking about basins that need a reasonable level of water. Because of climate change, I think the levels of water are going down more and more and it is more difficult for you to make projections. The same goes for Mr. Hubert. How can floods and draughts affect your activities?

Please go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Choquette, may I interrupt you for a second?

I simply want to remind you and our witnesses that our study is based on habitat conservation and terrestrial habitat. I understand there's a tenuous connection, but I would urge you and encourage our committee witnesses to confine their remarks to habitat conservation.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't think you quite understood my question for the witnesses. Let me reword it.

How is the fight against climate change important for habitat conservation and for your companies' productivity? Of course, you are also concerned about productivity. In that respect, the fight against climate change is crucial. Go ahead.

[Jim Burpee]

It's hard for me to draw a direct connection on the adaptation issues of dealing with climate change and on the operation of our facilities. Again, weather patterns change, precipitation patterns change, and the hydroelectric side is a risk, and I think the jury's out as to what that actually is. Most of our issues dealing with adaptation are more on how infrastructure is designed to withstand storms, whatever.

It's hard to see a direct connection between our habitat restoration or protection activities and climate other than, as Dan pointed out, there are a lot of co-benefits. A lot of the OPG—not from what Dan said but I know from my own experience when I worked there. A lot of our work in habitat was promoting biodiversity. There are related co-benefits in terms of there being a carbon sink and preserving biodiversity as well at the same time. But to say this is a huge risk area to conservation plans, I have a hard time drawing the connection.

[Mark Hubert]

This is one particular area where as a forest sector we're in a slightly different position in that we are working with trees that are directly affected by the climates in which they live. It's important for us to be mitigating and adapting in such a way to ensure that the areas where we are operating continue to maintain viable and productive forests. To the degree that the climate warms the forest, as it moves further and further north, species change, and areas that are currently productive may no longer be productive or may have different tree species or areas. That impacts the industry both from a productivity and an investment perspective.

There are a number of activities that the sector and companies specifically are undertaking to identify ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change based on actual different forest management practices taking place in operations. Those range from testing different tree species to also employing improved environmental procedures at the mills themselves. There are steps we're taking that are important for us to do in the forest. There's stuff that's important for us to do in the mill sites as well, to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I will continue with you, Mr. Hubert.

I would like to talk about habitat conservation. That is your main concern. It is therefore very important. You talked about Vision 2020 and the 12 parameters. Have you assessed the potential financial impact of climate change on your industry? I am thinking of forest fires, droughts and floods, for example. Have you looked at that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

To my colleague's point, certainly looking at the methodology on habitat conservation best practices in the context of climate change would be an appropriate line of questioning. But I believe his question was specifically to the economic impact of climate change, which I think is outside of scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will let you make your comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I have requested that you focus your remarks on the clearly defined scope with which the committee all agreed prior to entering the committee. I would just ask your cooperation to use our time to the best benefit. That's the concern of all our committee members.

So proceed.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 30 seconds.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Unfortunately, I was interrupted. I would still like to thank you for your excellent testimony.

Let me remind you that the fight against climate change is essential for habitat conservation. I know that the Conservative government does not agree with us. Let me remind you that this is a priority for the NDP and for future generations. That is why I am going to use my remaining 30 seconds to reiterate its importance.

Thank you for talking about it in your presentations and I hope, once again, that it will be included in the final report. Otherwise, it would be a total shame and an embarrassment for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Maybe in the future we can do a study, Mr. Choquette, but right now we're....

We're going to move now to Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps what my colleague opposite was trying to get at...and I would only be so presumptuous as to try to paraphrase some of his comments. He sort of set a very macro-level view but didn't talk about specific actions or a specific impact on your industry, or how specific practices affect the management of habitat, which is really the core of what our study is today.

So I'm going to ask a question that I would like each of you to answer. I'm going to be interested to hear the answer from the Canadian Wildlife Federation as well.

You all spoke in different terms about what I would characterize as programs that may be part of your corporate social responsibility directive. In your opinion, what are some of the best practices for habitat conservation that you've employed in terms of what my colleague Mr. Sopuck mentioned as actual environmental outcomes? Could you speak a little bit to some of the indicators that you use for that?

Then as a follow-on to that, is there anything that government can do to promote the adoption of those activities or perhaps go a little further to incent industry to take that next step, perhaps going beyond the envelope of where we're at right now?

I think it was the Forest Products Association that spoke about the 35% increase in performance. What can government do to basically incent industry to perhaps be a better performer in habitat conservation, and what's working right now?

I'll start with Mr. Burpee.

[Jim Burpee]

Our 2012 sustainable electricity annual report has lots of examples of things that are actually happening, because it's not specifically just in conservation plans.... That crosses over a number of our principles, including aboriginal relations, which is a key component as well. We're working on a lot of the facilities and plans with the aboriginal community, especially where we have joint use of the water. For some of the specifics we already heard from some of OPG's specific, on-the-ground action.

Every province has an example. Nova Scotia Power has done a lot of work on inner Bay of Fundy salmon. I forget the name of the river, but it's one of the internal rivers that goes into the Bay of Fundy. As I said, we could submit these afterwards. We have fairly long, detailed information of all the actions being taken.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

That would be really helpful because as a committee we're trying to look at ways where we can either advance or close gaps in certain policy areas. Specific examples of where things are working or where we could perhaps assist are what we're looking for.

[Jim Burpee]

Within that submission we had specifically what we're doing and also where we're at risk. It's not just, as you mentioned, whether we need an incentive. Our first incentive is not to be failing to meet an act.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Right.

Mr. Gratton.

[Pierre Gratton]

I'd like to reinforce a point made by Mr. Bates earlier, when he referenced the North American waterfowl management plan, which I think is an incredible initiative that's been going on successfully for years. As I referenced in our brief, a number of our members have been able to get involved in that, some very directly, through the intermountain joint venture in B.C.

Teck Resources has become a part of the intermountain joint venture. But we have other members, whether it's Rio Tinto or BHP Billiton, who have gotten involved on specific projects with other conservation partners, and of course, with governments.

I guess Mr. Bates' comment was that here's an area that's being well looked after—wetlands, ducks, and so on—but there are gaps. You might want to look at how one could replicate that model, which has been so successful. It really brings multiple partners to the table and leverages money, which is always important. It leverages knowledge and skills, and the capabilities of many different groups, including industry, to achieve conservation outcomes. Done that way, I think you avoid conflict and you make everybody work together towards better outcomes.