Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Lorena Patterson]

We represent all of them. The Crown corporation Hydro-Québec is a member of ours as well.

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

Could you use Hydro-Québec's strategy for protecting biodiversity as a model for a consensus-based approach, one that all biodiversity advocates would support? You could use it as a basis for future work. It would give you security, you and the companies you represent. You would have a broad agreement that adheres to certain conditions. On the surface, you would have the research knowledge and tools to make the process easier and more consistent across the board.

Is that something that would be feasible, or am I dreaming in technicolour, as I tend to do?

[Gilbert Bennett]

I don't think you're dreaming. There are 700 existing hydro facilities in Canada. It would be valuable if there was consensus on what the priorities were for each of them. What populations are important to communities, whether they be indigenous, recreational or commercial fisheries? What species are important? What is the sustainability of the population? Is it at risk? Does it need support? Is mitigation required for that particular population? Are improvements required, or are there situations where things are okay?

That conversation doesn't happen anymore because the department says that the act says you cannot kill a fish. We can't even get to that discussion. Operators don't know what the priorities are for each of those facilities, nor do they have clarity on what the expectations are for a new facility. Maybe sometimes for a new facility it's an easier conversation, because you go through the environmental assessment process and collect a lot of data, a lot of information and a lot of feedback. Those priorities get discussed, but for the 700 facilities, some of which have been here for more than a century, industry doesn't have guidance on what the expectations are.

I agree that a comprehensive plan like Hydro-Québec has would be an important discussion point. Then we need to get it validated so we can get on with the work.

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

If I take your view a step further, wouldn't it be appropriate to establish a mechanism in the Fisheries Act, one that allows for environmental mediation based on specific data? It would apply to sectors like hydroelectricity and everything that goes along with those types of activities. It would take into account biodiversity protection, the fishing economy and coastal economies. This mediation mechanism is somewhat removed from policy or political considerations but would bring together actors across the board with a relationship to, or an impact on, biodiversity. The mechanism could orient the department's decisions in a non-partisan non-political way. The biodiversity strategy would be your key tool or basic plan.

[Gilbert Bennett]

I agree. Two things that changed in the 2019 act made this problematic. One was the focus and fixation on the death of individual fish as opposed to the sustainability of the population. The second problem was the removal of public interest as a decision-making criterion. As a result, that broader discussion doesn't become a topic. When somebody looks at a Fisheries Act authorization, they say not to worry about public interest. All they worry about are those fish, not necessarily the fish population. That fixation on an important but very tiny point means that we get to infinitesimal effects where somebody says, “I want you to fix that.” It takes our attention away from the bigger picture. It's a problem and it can be fixed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

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

As my father would say, too much is as bad as not enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

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

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

This is an interesting conversation. I'm from British Columbia. We have a lot of hydro power. This hasn't been raised, or at least it hasn't come across my radar as a big issue, but the hydro producers are predominantly public in British Columbia, so it's a different scenario.

I'm very interested in the distinction you're drawing between individual fish and fish populations and in the idea of focusing on fisheries and habitat as opposed to individual fish. I certainly hear the frustration and I think I understand it.

Fisheries permitting is a challenge that many different industries face, and it's a complex one in some ways, but this discussion takes place in the context of the federal government having a pretty spotty record when it comes to the management of fish populations and fisheries. If you look historically at the past 100 years and the number of fish populations that have been either entirely wiped out, decimated or severely drawn down, there isn't a great record of sustainable management in fisheries. There are exceptions to that, of course, but where I live, many of the wild stocks are at 10% of their historical abundance.

Using the metaphor of the highway through Banff—which I think is a good one, and I take the logic of the analogy—we also have serious challenges when it comes to, in my region, the highway and railroad mortality of moose. At what point do problems affecting individual fish become problems affecting fish populations? I guess that's the question.

How do we work with a situation where we have insufficient assessment, science and boots on the ground when it comes to fisheries monitoring? How do we shift from what right now sounds like a very precautionary regulatory approach to one that is more streamlined and makes it easier for your business? How do we do that without doing a better job of managing these populations, these fisheries? How do we build public trust around that? When the public looks at it, at least in my neck of the woods, they don't think the federal government is good at managing fish populations. It's the one thing people come together about.

[Lorena Patterson]

The fact that there's no distinction between the fish is a starting point. It's indiscriminate in terms of the individual fish in question. It becomes absurd because you can give a fishing licence to someone to fish more fish in an afternoon than are allowed to go through a turbine.

It's a conversation that shouldn't happen. We should look at this more comprehensively to determine where the sensitive fish populations are, and then add measures that mitigate and help recuperate some of those populations in a different way.

Mr. Bennett, I don't know if you have something to add.

[Gilbert Bennett]

The existing regulatory regime is not working for many industries, and you've probably heard from many groups in hydro power here at committee.

The first point is that you can look at a population in any river system and begin to make determinations as to whether you believe that population is sustainable or additional work is required. I would agree that in British Columbia, salmon is a very important issue and there are challenges.

Starting with that focus would be really important, but you can make similar connections in any river system. What are the populations that are important? What's the sustainable level of that population? Is it below the target? Is it above the target? Those questions are not easy either, I agree, but they're part of a more straightforward management conversation than counting the individual fish on a daily basis that might have difficulty going through a hydro plant. The level of detail that's being expected in the current regulatory regime is not working either.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not an expert on hydro power, so I'm trying to imagine what some of these scenarios are. Earlier you mentioned fish going through a turbine, which I think is a pretty visual way for a fish to die, but obviously we're also talking about other kinds of impacts related to these activities.

We mentioned the analogy of the wildlife overpass. There must be analogous mitigators in the hydro world. Is it simply a matter of those mitigators being too expensive for your industry to afford? Perhaps unpack that a little for us.

[Lorena Patterson]

One of the issues is that we're not really sure because there's not a lot of clarity in the act. This process starts with the applications and reapplications, and the measures change over time, as Peter referred to in his remarks. There isn't clarity around that. If the proponents know ahead of time, they can account for these things and avoid as much as possible the negative impacts.

We also cannot overlook the importance of this particular technology for the Canadian grid. We have a very clean source of power. We have a very reliable source of power, and it's completely dispatchable. You don't get that in any other source of power. There has to be more of a balance between interests. We take every measure possible to avoid negative impacts on fish. That is top of mind for everyone, for sure, but we also have to be able to do our job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll now go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here. Your testimony is very interesting.

I'll start off with Ms. Patterson.

We heard from Electricity Canada last week, and a big takeaway for me was that, on the one hand, the current government has mandated and promoted electrification and an increased demand for electricity, and on the other hand, the government has made it more difficult and slower for hydroelectric projects to be authorized and built.

Is that an accurate summary, and do you want to add anything briefly to it?

[Lorena Patterson]

I think that's fair. It certainly adds time and uncertainty around time, because it could continue for many years. The clock stops whenever an additional requirement is made for information.

While on paper DFO may be complying with the times mandated by the law—200 days I think it is—they're taking many years in some cases, as they're reiterating their requests. Obviously, that adds a lot of time and a lot of cost that we could be spending on other things, like increasing power production on the grid.

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

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, net flows of electricity between Canada and the United States have shifted, with Canada importing more electricity from the U.S. than we export to our neighbours since late 2022. The EIA states that sales from Canada declined by nearly 30% from 2022 to 2023.

The recent announcements from the incoming president have raised questions about the future of our trade relationship. Is it possible for Canada to increase our hydroelectric generation capacity to reduce our dependence on electricity imported from the United States and meet the growing demand here in Canada?

[Gilbert Bennett]

Yes. The Canadian industry will respond. We'll make sure that customers have reliable electricity. That could include hydro, but it could include wind, solar or nuclear. All the other alternatives are part of the portfolio to meet that demand.

One thing I would say about the existing interconnection between Canada and the U.S. is that it contributes to customer benefits on both sides of the border and improves reliability on both sides of the border. Notwithstanding those benefits from a national energy security point of view, the industry will respond. We'll make sure that customers have reliable service.

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

What would be the biggest challenge to the industry in responding to those growing needs?

[Gilbert Bennett]

Again, it's about making sure the regulatory process is working effectively, that we have regulatory certainty across industry—across all the electrical sectors for that matter—so that we can move forward with necessary projects in order to meet those demands.

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

Has the current act as passed by this government helped or hindered their goal of reaching electrification?

[Gilbert Bennett]

Do you mean the current Fisheries Act?

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

Has the current Fisheries Act helped or hindered?

[Gilbert Bennett]

The current Fisheries Act has hindered that process, in my view.

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

The act has made it more difficult to reach their goal of full electrification. Okay.