Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Robert Chamberlin]

I believe the Fisheries Act has to create the appropriate space to look after every one of the stressors that affect salmon. Pinnipeds are one and fish farms are another, as are logging practices, mining, oil and gas, global warming, food availability, floods, wildfires—all of these things.

We need to start to drill down and understand each of the implications of those particular stressors and arrive at a solution for them. What I'd love to see is a multi-billion dollar salmon fund to restore salmon across the province so every watershed gets the work it needs, not pretending that PSSI is going to do anything there, because it's shown it hasn't. If we're going to invest in the restoration of salmon and habitat and don't address every stressor, the potential of trying to pump gas through a fire is real.

Pinnipeds definitely without question are a stressor. I have friends on the Fraser River who say they want me to come on their boat to watch the pinnipeds eat up the juvenile salmon and the adult ones when they come back. Certainly it's a stressor, but we have to think more about the combination of different stressors and how they interact with one another. Then we can start talking about science and sustainability, as Derek has mentioned a few times.

I want to thank everyone who's here from the last report. You had a look at the Canadian science advisory secretariat, with its pseudo-objective “industry influence science” process that doesn't serve Canadians. I think your recommendations were sound. We need independent science. We need science that is not going to be hijacked by an industry that will benefit from the outcome, whether it has pinniped, fish farm or forestry implications.

One thing I'm involved with in British Columbia, and I have been for quite a number of years, is the watershed futures initiative at Simon Fraser University, which looks at the cumulative impacts of salmon on the watershed. There's work being done at UBC and work being done at the Pacific Salmon Foundation. There's incredible work being done on water at the First Nations Fisheries Council. Where is the opportunity to bring everyone who has information together so we can start to understand what each person and each organization is doing and how it aligns with what we need to do to rebuild salmon in a very holistic way? Once we have that, we can sit down and take a look at things like the wild salmon policy and the conservation units and start to figure out a strategic way to use public money to attain the goal. Right now there isn't one, and I think Canadians deserve more. Certainly the wild salmon deserve more, but it's going to take resourcing to bring everyone together to arrive at an understanding so we can build what's necessary for future generations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Chamberlin.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for the last intervention. You have five minutes or less.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about communal licences. The regulations allow for the minister to choose who gets to fish and what kinds of vessels they get to use. However, where the minister doesn't do that, it's left up to the community to decide.

Can anybody give us any sense of what the ratio is for directions from the minister versus community-led directions?

Mr. Barnes, do you have that? No. Okay.

[Robert Chamberlin]

I have a comment on communal licences.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

We'll get to that in a second. I have my stack of questions here.

By the way, you talked about the coordination of all the agencies and organizations and said they're each doing little pieces of things and nobody knows what's getting left out or where there's unnecessary overlap. That's another conversation, too, for another time.

Let's talk about commercial licences. We've been working with communities up and down the coasts and with environmental organizations. One thing concerns me, and I'm wondering if it needs to be properly reflected in the act. There is a habit in some communities to get a commercial licence, and instead of having somebody at home go out and fish, they lease it out. It becomes a kind of profit centre, and we know what conditions are like on the west coast with the leasing of licences and quota.

Would you like to see a change to that regime?

[Robert Chamberlin]

In terms of communal licensing, I'm assuming you're talking about PICFI on the Pacific coast.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I was talking about communal licences, but I don't think communal licences can be passed off to a non-indigenous person. I'm talking about the commercial licences allocated to a community that the community turns around and leases to Lord knows who.

[Robert Chamberlin]

One of the goals I'm aware of in the Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiative is to maintain the capacity to fish and to look at how we make sure there is going to be a passing on of that ability. The sad thing is that the management of fisheries by DFO has been abysmal, and we have nothing but collapsed stocks all across the province.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I take that point, but I want to get to the point about communities leasing out their ability to fish to somebody who isn't in the community.

[Robert Chamberlin]

I'm aware that this happens, but I'm also aware that there are nations that lease out licences that have come to them through various means. Built into that is a capacity opportunity where we say, “You can lease a licence, but my nephew Jimmy is going with you.” We can then begin to rehabilitate or reinvigorate the capacity to do that fishery on our own.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

That's helpful, because if you follow the money, it would appear that generally in the commercial fishery in B.C., the money is going to anybody but the person who takes the risk with the boat and does the work with the fish. That is something we've tackled at this committee before.

On the guardians, the regulations stipulate that they'll have peace officer status. Is that adequate to do the job they're expected to do, or should there be some effort to coordinate guardians with the indigenous policing we've heard so much about?

Mr. Barnes, do you want to comment on that?

[Stu Barnes]

Again, it varies nation to nation, but one of the questions that we said needs to be asked initially to start to explore the guardian stream again is what level of guardian a community needs, wants or desires. There are cases where they would like a fully armed person who can make sure that the laws and regulations of their territory are being followed and abided by and who can enforce them. We also have places where a technical body could be sufficient, to just go out there and observe, record and report.

We envision a program where we have hubs of guardians that can be leaned on by the groups that have only technical endeavours in the guardian world. I think there's a scale, a spectrum, and it's up to the nations to decide where they land on the spectrum. They can have a fully enforced guardian who can go up to a Canadian and ask for ID or a person who's there to observe, record and report based on the size of the fishery, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie. You're right on time, the first one today.

We'd like to say thank you to Mr. Butler, Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Barnes for being here today and sharing their knowledge with the committee as we do this particular study.

We'll suspend for a moment while we change panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Let's get everyone back to the table to start with the second panel.

From Nova Scotia Power, we have Mr. Peter Gregg, president and CEO, and from WaterPower Canada, we have Lorena Patterson, president and CEO, and Gilbert Bennett, senior adviser. Gilbert is well known in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. Each organization will have five minutes or less for their opening statement.

Mr. Gregg, you have the floor.

[Peter Gregg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nova Scotia Power Inc.]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today.

As the chair said, my name is Peter Gregg, and I'm the president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power. My goal today is to share some perspectives on how the act applies to our hydroelectric generating stations in the field and highlight opportunities to improve regional implementation in Nova Scotia.

We at Nova Scotia Power value the important work done by this committee and the critical role the Fisheries Act plays in protecting aquatic ecosystems. Nova Scotia Power has operated 16 hydro systems across the province for over 50 years, providing renewable energy and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. These systems are essential to achieving provincial and federal climate goals, including the phase-out of coal by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Our relationship with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is similarly long-standing. It dates back to the 1920s and has included extensive collaboration on fish passage development and modifications, particularly through the 1970s and 1980s. Over the years, we have taken a continual improvement approach to the operation and upgrade of these facilities. For example, we made substantial investments to comply with modern dam safety standards under the Canadian dam safety program, all while balancing environmental considerations and the affordability of electricity for Nova Scotians. Our hydro systems are not just part of Nova Scotia Power's history; they're critical to our future. However, the cost and complexity of achieving the targets I spoke about are considerable.

We see three key challenges in how the Fisheries Act is currently being implemented.

First, the act's focus on individual fish rather than populations has led to costly and time-consuming Fisheries Act authorizations, or FAAs, for almost all hydro-related work. For instance, a relatively short-term maintenance drawdown required an FAA, adding $300,000 in costs related to offset work.

Second, the FAA process itself is lengthy and unpredictable. One dam refurbishment project submitted in 2020 is still awaiting approval. Additional requirements as we await this approval have increased costs by $4.1 million and have delayed critical safety work.

Third, inconsistent regional interpretations of the act have led to significant operational challenges, which include new environmental studies, costly upgrades and regulatory delays. These costs ultimately fall to Nova Scotians and our customers, who already face high energy transition costs.

To address these issues, we recommend refocusing the act to protect fish populations rather than individual fish, and reserving FAAs for high-risk activities. Routine, lower-risk work should be managed through streamlined processes such as codes of practice or letters of advice. We also urge reasonable leniency on grandfathering legacy systems that were not designed with modern regulations in mind. Finally, flexibility should be built into offsetting policies for older facilities that have already undergone significant upgrades.

Nova Scotia Power remains committed to reducing the environmental impact of our operations and supporting the transition to clean energy. With these adjustments, I believe we can find the right balance among safeguarding fish populations, maintaining public safety, advancing decarbonization goals and keeping electricity as affordable as possible for the people of Nova Scotia.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Patterson for five minutes or less.

[Lorena Patterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, WaterPower Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear for this committee's review of the Fisheries Act.

Canada's great, blue water battery that is hydro power has been seriously impacted by the application and interpretation of the Fisheries Act. What could be essentially a cost-free service, which currently powers more than 60% of our national grid, must now pass on to ratepayers the significant cost of monitoring and implementing measures to protect every single fish from encountering its turbines. While the intent to protect every single fish from harm is noble, the impact of this task is that it's causing electricity rates to rise for Canadians who depend on hydro power to power their homes and businesses and is using up capital that would otherwise be deployed for new projects.

Section 34.4 of the Fisheries Act states:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in the death of fish.

This is unless:

the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity is authorized by the Minister and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;

It's pretty strict.

Since the 2019 act was passed, there's been no additional guidance from DFO regarding the application of section 34.4. DFO officials are not required to take into account a reasonableness test when determining whether an application meets the expected standard of care. In the absence of clear guidelines, proponents also struggle to determine whether the standard of care has been met. Further, differing interpretations of the section have resulted in the inconsistent application of standards across the country.

WaterPower Canada members seek clarity and direction that can be met within a reasonable period at a reasonable cost. This will protect ratepayers and help rebuild faith in Canada's investment framework.

To provide an analogy, in Banff National Park, the department of fish and wildlife installed wildlife bridges over highways and fences along treelines to minimize the potential impact of vehicles striking animals as they drive through the park. Even so, it's understood that the occasional animal will wander into traffic, and tourism is permitted regardless. While every loss of an animal is tragic, it is deemed acceptable when compared to the importance of tourism and transportation to Canada's economy, particularly considering that these animal populations are not endangered. What is happening to hydro power producers is the equivalent to asking Parks Canada to report and replace, sometimes at a 2:1 ratio, every chipmunk, squirrel or deer that wanders into the path of an oncoming vehicle, and if it fails to do so, it faces the threat of closing down the highway.

This is more than just an irritant to applicants. The additional monitoring of every fish and installation of mitigation measures can cost operators millions of dollars—as we've just heard—for each of their hydro facilities, but it serves no actual purpose because either the fish in the area are not endangered or the losses have been mitigated elsewhere. These costs are borne by all of us in this room because the utilities pass these costs on to ratepayers.

Considering the cumulative costs across approximately 700 hydro facilities in this country, this exposure runs into the billions of dollars for Canadians. Ratepayers include not just us, but also potential investors, who are easily persuaded to go elsewhere when electricity costs are too high. Power producers themselves may choose to forgo the lengthy and uncertain process of seeking a Fisheries Act authorization in favour of other power sources that are less environmentally friendly but do not impact a body of water.

There's another aspect of this act that we would like you to consider. As a rule, regulatory enforcement and permitting are often best conducted by a third party—usually an independent regulator or, at a minimum, a project management office. Otherwise, if the people charged with enforcing the act report to those setting the policy, concerns about undue influence by the government of the day and potential for bias may arise. We have indeed observed some public servants taking the policy to an extreme. Proponents have no independent mechanism to prevent the endless cycle of applications and reapplications that some of our members currently face. Some of these members are reluctant to raise their concerns with the department for fear of retribution.

To summarize, we would ask that the definitions of “fish” and “fisheries” return to the original focus on fisheries and fish habitat as opposed to individual fish; that consideration for the cost of monitoring, mitigating, and delayed application reviews to ratepayers be included in DFO evaluations; and that consideration be given to the establishment of an arm's-length party that would be responsible for these applications.

The Government of Canada does not need to micromanage every detail of a project or facility to ensure compliance. Indeed, if our recommendations are followed, we will have a better chance of meeting Canada's climate goals while at the same time ensuring Canadians have access to the lowest cost, most reliable energy grid possible.

Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for six minutes or less.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bennett, if we look at Canada's future with hydro power, how is that future looking with the act that's currently in place?

[Gilbert Bennett, Senior Adviser, WaterPower Canada]

I can reasonably say that the current micromanagement we see in the administration of the act is increasing risk for the industry. There's no doubt that there are utilities in Canada that would look at the regulatory risk associated with hydro—notwithstanding that it's a long-lived, reliable, valuable asset that runs for decades—and say the risk of pushing paper, seeking authorization and navigating the environmental assessment process is simply too big, and they would look at alternatives.

Look at the conversation about nuclear today. The general consensus among many people is that nuclear is an easier path to go down for environmental assessment than hydro is. That, to my mind, is a significant challenge.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Are there any other challenges, Ms. Patterson, other than what you've laid out for us here today?

[Lorena Patterson]

There are multiple challenges, obviously. There is a cumulative effect to all of the regulations we have to comply with in the regulation ecosystem in Canada. A lot of the applications are repeated at the provincial level, so we have provincial monitoring as well as federal monitoring. It's a repetition of the same information in many cases, which often leads to different outcomes.

We could look at streamlining this whole process much more effectively to encourage these facilities to operate and build new facilities in the future.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Gregg, you talked about managing fish and fisheries. Would you like to give us an example of how that's impacting your operations in Nova Scotia?

[Peter Gregg]

Sure. I referenced in my opening comments, and it's probably the best example, that we've been waiting for four years for FAA approval. That's added significant cost to the system. We do everything we can to keep our dam system safe and compliant, but there's work that needs to be done on these dams. I worry that if it takes too much longer, we'll end up taking on too much risk for that.

I think it's also important to mention that we have to be off coal generation by 2030 in Nova Scotia, and we need to have 80% renewable energy by the same time. The hydro fleet for us is essential to achieving that. We're not blessed with the vast hydro resources that Quebec, Manitoba and B.C. have, but we have 16 hydro facilities across the province that are essential for meeting those requirements by 2030. There's also the potential of new requirements for net zero by 2035.

Work needs to be done to make sure that those systems are available. As I said, they're 50 to 100 years old and need constant upkeep. What we're looking for are predictable timelines, practical solutions and a risk-based approach to regulation.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Are you finding there are excessive delays in permitting?