Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2018

[Sergio Marchi]

I would lean towards Terry, where the rubber hits the road in terms of regs on industry. However, for us, probably the singular one is lowering the threshold, as we both mentioned, to cover fish as opposed to a fish population, and microhabitat as opposed to general habitat.

We're one of the cleanest industries going. We're concerned about the fisheries, about the condition of water, but we also need to produce electricity for the benefit of Canadians and industry, so we're looking for a balanced, practical approach.

Terry, I don't know if you want to add to that.

[Terry Toner]

Sure.

I think the tone of most of our recommendations is in the direction of providing guidance. The wording that has been introduced can work, but I think we're looking for more clarity as to the kinds of considerations. I think population or ecosystem level is the area we're trying to focus on.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

You have two minutes and fifty seconds.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

If you could, as soon as possible, provide us with a little more detail on what those recommendations might be, it would be very helpful as we move forward.

Mr. Marchi, you mentioned the cumulative effect of overlapping jurisdictional regulation and so on, and the problems that's creating. Do you see more of that with Bill C-68?

[Sergio Marchi]

In terms of the recommendations, I believe your deadline is May 10, so we will certainly be coming forward with specificity, as well as legal written amendments.

The cumulative impact is really becoming a concern, not only for our industry but for regulated industries in general. From the federal perspective, we have this fisheries bill, navigational waters, environmental assessment, the old NEB, climate change targets, clean fuel standards, coal-to-gas conversions, and clean air and clean water regulations, to name a few. Then you multiply that for every province and every territory.

The concern I tried to voice is that every level of government—and we don't object to being regulated—is responsible for their own layer. The question we ask is, which government is responsible and accountable for the entire overhang? We ultimately eat the cumulative pancakes and pay for it, and then pass it on to the end user: our customers and your voters.

Even though it's one of the most reliable, affordable electricity power in the world, we know how much electricity rates have become top of mind for many people across our country.

Ultimately, we need smart, good regulations, but regulations and legislation do have a cost. The cumulative impact is becoming dangerously heavy.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Fuller, we've had testimony presented about potential impacts of fisheries management decisions on depleted stocks and that the minister's opinion should be the base of some of those decisions. Do you think that the minister's opinion should be the case for making decisions or should it be science?

[Susanna Fuller]

I do think science should be the basis. I think in some cases the discretion is inherent in this act and this Bill C-68 has not gotten rid of discretion. I think it's important to have the factors to be considered absolutely include science, and I think that's a good addition because there's science but there's also precautionary approach, an ecosystem approach, and incorporation of indigenous knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Dr. Fuller.

I'm sorry, I feel I'm always cutting you off, but that's the time there.

We're now going to go to Mr. Donnelly for his seven minutes please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses for your testimony on Bill C-68.

Dr. Fuller, you mentioned six recommendations. I think you covered those quite well and you mentioned that you will submit that to this committee in writing.

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, I will.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, that's very helpful.

Next, to Mr. MacPherson, you talked about the federal environmental review taking precedence over provincial reviews. Do you have wording as to how you think the act could cover that?

[Ian MacPherson]

It's been an interesting situation because they're federal waters, so we were surprised that in certain situations provincially it can take precedence over a federal EA in federal waters. That's part of what we're dealing with in the Abercrombie mill situation there.

Certainly the amount of time for input and the thoroughness are big concerns and that's why we are, as a collective group, lobbying to have a federal EA for this particular project.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I know on our coast, we've had provincial EAs take precedence over federal as well.

Any kind of wording or suggestion specifically on how to improve that would be helpful.

[Ian MacPherson]

We could certainly provide that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

I also wanted to ask our folks from the electricity association here about any specific wording around national standards for consultation with provincial partners, because I think that was mentioned. I think that's a tricky field. How do you provide a national standard and still reflect the provincial and territorial autonomy?

[Terry Toner]

We've done a lot of work with DFO over the last 12 years or more where we've had actually an MOU where we've worked collaboratively with them. I think we've recognized in that work that there is diversity across the country. There are different fish species. They have different priorities. There are different on-the-ground examples of things that happen.

Taking into account regional or provincial or territorial is important. We've started working with them on principles. When we start with principles, that's usually very helpful. Most people can agree on the principles. Then as we take it out into practices we measure those practices, whether they be the same across the country or not, against the principles to see that there's a consistency, not an identicalness, to it.

I think that's really important.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

If there's wording that you could provide the committee for Bill C-68, that would be really helpful.

[Terry Toner]

We will do that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's the legislative part that we're looking at.

In terms of habitat banking, you mentioned there's some promise with this. I've also heard testimony that there's some nervousness about habitat banking if it allows the complete destruction of one watershed at the expense of putting enhancement into and maybe even over-enhancement into certain other watersheds.

How do you avoid that?

[Terry Toner]

I think the work on banking and on compensation, whether it's offsets or credits, is still an evolving area of development. In the last two or three years in particular, DFO has really worked on that.

What we do know is that projects require the ability to proceed. They can't completely avoid all areas of habitat, but we in our industry try very hard to avoid critical habitat, whether it's for species at risk or under the Fisheries Act. In those instances where there is habitat that is in play, the evolution of the work that's starting to happen—and, I think, is provided for in the legislation, and could be even better as we move forward—is the notion of identifying the critical nature of the habitat itself. If we're putting an alternate habitat in place, such as banking or whatever, there need to be—and we agree with this—significant and notable criteria to make sure that it actually is doing what it says it's going to do.

We believe that if we're able to do that, we should be able to move forward. This is an area that the department has been very careful about, and we respect that. I think we're simply looking to encourage rules that allow even more things to be accounted for as offsets because doing so encourages industries like ours that want things to do well and to sustain and to progress. It allows us a greater breadth of things that we could offer to do.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Could you provide some wording on the criteria? That would be very helpful. Any submissions that this committee receives in terms of recommendations, amendments, and wording are critical.

Maybe in the remaining minute or two that I have, I'll give Mr. Marchi an opportunity to brag a little bit here about the association.

You mentioned how you've been able to reduce GHGs. Can you tell the committee how you've been able to do that?

[Sergio Marchi]

It has been a combination of things.

First of all, I think our country's decision to wean ourselves off coal is a significant variable in that. As you know, we're looking at stopping coal by 2030. I think, in some provinces, it will probably be 2040, with respect to some flexibility in those economic regions. I think getting off coal is important.

Second, simply, is innovation. We have a huge investment bill to renew our infrastructure. The Conference Board of Canada estimated some years ago that we have to spend in the order of $350 billion by 2030, but that's not just about replacing old with old. It's about replacing old with new and innovative. I think innovation has a lot to do with that. Our firms are investing roughly $20 billion annually on this innovation and infrastructure, and the outcomes are telling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

You have thirty seconds.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Dr. Fuller, I'll give you 30 seconds, since you've always been getting cut off, if you want to talk about the modernizing of the Fisheries Act and finish your thoughts on that.

You maybe got to 2000, but not to 2018.