Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Peter Gregg]

Yes. That's exactly what we're experiencing.

I'll give you a little more detail on the one that's taken four years. We've been asked to do studies and have done those studies, but we have had four letters subsequent to those—I would call them largely incomplete letters—that have asked us to do more studies on top of more studies.

We're happy to do the studies, and we care about the fish population. I don't want anybody to think we're trying to get away from our responsibility. However, when we don't know what the timeline is and don't know what the requirements are, it makes it very difficult to plan a capital budget and maintain and operate the system.

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

Mr. Gregg, do you think DFO recognizes the importance of your industry when it's making its decisions?

[Peter Gregg]

I think it does; I really do. As I said, we have a long-standing relationship with DFO that goes back over 100 years. I just think that what happened with the modernization of the act in 2019 and the shift away from focusing on fish populations and fisheries to individual fish became the turning point. Before, when we could rely on looking at our activities from a risk-based perspective and could have a letter of agreement to do certain work rather than a full-out FAA to do it, it was a practical approach and it worked well. It's really since 2019 that we've seen this approach become much more difficult.

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

Are you saying that, basically, the Fisheries Act is calling for the reinvention of the wheel with every project?

[Peter Gregg]

I don't know if it's calling for the reinvention of the wheel, but every piece of work we seek to do on one of our systems seems to require a Fisheries Act authorization. That takes a long time, and there's uncertainty in that. Before, we could have letters of agreement that were based on a shared understanding of what the risk to the fishery would be, and we'd have offsets to take care of any kind of potential risk to a fishery. What we're looking for is more of a return to the pre-2019 approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

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

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, thank you for being here today and for your opening remarks as well.

I'm going to start with Mr. Gregg. First and foremost, thank you for being here. We've had many chats on this very topic.

It's in Nova Scotia Power's best interest to have a healthy fish population. I think we need to categorically say that. I want to look at this from a case-study perspective. You don't have to mention a particular project's name, but given your recommendations up front and the touchpoints that you're having difficulty with, I'm wondering if you can take a little time—and part of the problem is that we only have six minutes—to quickly go through a case study of a particular project. What are the touchpoints and how would those hard-wired recommendations help?

[Peter Gregg]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway, for the chats we've had along the way.

The best way I can do it, without drawing on a particular project, is to describe it generally. As part of our ongoing work, sometime we're looking to do a maintenance drawdown of a headpond for safety reasons or need to make some improvements to a dam for safety purposes. We used to need a code of practice to allow that work to proceed under a letter of advice. That's the way it used to be done, and that worked well. We worked closely with the regional officials at DFO, who understood the operational requirements of our business, and we looked to letters of advice or an expedited Fisheries Act authorization. However, now, every time we're looking to do that kind of relatively minor work, it requires a Fisheries Act authorization—every one of them. As a result, there's a backlog at DFO that's resulting in massive delays that can go into multiple years.

We want to do everything we can to protect fish populations, as you said, but we know we need to clean our grid and that a healthier climate is good for fish populations. We're trying to balance that out. We're just looking for a predictable approach, a risk-based approach, and a consistent application of the rules.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

To go back to what is driving this, obviously there's a business case for it, but there's also a clear case that we need to get off coal.

[Peter Gregg]

Yes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

How many projects are we talking about in Nova Scotia that you find are in this predicament? I would agree with you that it seems, through testimony from all of you, the approach now is quite layered as compared to 2019 or pre-2019, when it was very much about due diligence and we were quicker to assess and make a decision. It appears to me that the line of sight is not there and that—correct me if I'm wrong—the goalposts keep moving on you.

[Peter Gregg]

As to the first part of your question, we have 16 facilities, all of which are aging. Over time, all 16 will need work and will require DFO approval for the work we're doing there. We're trying to extend the life of all 16. It goes from our largest facilities—at Wreck Cove in Cape Breton and on the Mersey River on the south shore—to all of the smaller systems we have across the province. They require us to work with DFO.

As to the second part of your question, forgive me....

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You're asking a 54-year-old man to recall things.

[Peter Gregg]

I'm of a similar vintage. I recall things differently.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, I know.

I was predominantly thinking about what's driving this and the moving goalposts. There seems to be—not just from your testimony here but also from many conversations we've had—a time delay. Quite frankly, we expect DFO to do their due diligence by asking questions and asking them again to clarify, but can you make out the difference between that and what I think you're saying about it continuing beyond due diligence? It seems to be repetitiveness.

[Peter Gregg]

I think the best example of that, which I spoke to before, is one project where we've been waiting four years for a Fisheries Act authorization.

Going back to changing goalposts, there's frustration there. We respect regulation, but the challenges have been four years, multiple studies and the continual arrival of new letters that ask us to do more. It would be nice for them to say, “These are the requirements for a Fisheries Act authorization” so that it's very clear. Then we know what the work is, we know what the timeline is, we set about it and we're done. That has not been our experience.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have 20 seconds.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm not sure who mentioned that it's easier to get a nuclear project approved than, say, hydro. I think it was you, Mr. Bennett. I wrote that down immediately.

This goes to you, Ms. Patterson, as well.

You all talked about various recommendations. What is the one key recommendation that, if you don't see it in the report, will make you say, “Why is that not there?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Give a short answer, please, because he's gone over time.

[Lorena Patterson]

Focus on fisheries and fish habitat, as opposed to individual fish.

[Gilbert Bennett]

Yes, I would agree. Sustain a fish population by managing a fishery, as opposed to counting individual fish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to tell you about something we are doing in Quebec. You could say I am being chauvinistic again, but it is what it is.

Hydro-Québec has a strategy to protect biodiversity in Quebec. It is pretty significant. The strategy, which covers the period from 2022 to 2026, establishes a framework for future facility upgrades and renovations, as well as for new hydroelectric projects. The purpose is to ensure that these activities always take into account biodiversity.

Under the plan, scientists conduct studies on the behaviours of various species, eels, for instance. They study their behaviour before any work is carried out. Once the facility work has been completed, they make observations. Some species are negatively affected by the presence of the facility. Actually, it is their behaviour that is affected, not their development. In other words, they adapt, move to other locations and go elsewhere. When they do not, they are guided along the right path. This is a simplified explanation, because it is more complicated in reality. That is part of the strategy.

Hydro-Québec is a Crown corporation. Electricity is publicly owned in Quebec. You represent privately owned power companies. Is that correct?