Environment Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'd like to go back, Commissioner, to the point you raised about the Department of Fisheries permits for major projects and how they involve conditions. Going back to this joint review panel report on the Shell Canada oil sands project, I'll just quote again from the report:

DFO believed that Shell had limited opportunity to replace the habitat loss with similar habitat in the same area, given the scale of watershed disturbance proposed.

...DFO stated that it would continue to work with Shell to develop an NNLP.... DFO would also continue to explore additional alternative compensation options.... DFO...recommended that Shell continue to participate in regional initiatives that facilitated the detection of cumulative effects on the aquatic environment.

I imagine they are referring to CEMA. Those are not very stringent conditions, as far as I can see. Then the report gets to the views of the Alberta government. It says:

...Shell's predictions of the project-specific and cumulative impacts on fish and fish habitat lacked certainty due to the uncertainties associated with the water quality and quantity models.

Even Alberta is saying there doesn't seem to be enough data to assess the impacts of the project on fish habitat. Then Alberta goes on to say:

However, Alberta believed that effects on fish populations and fish habitat would be negligible if Shell could successfully compensate for loss of fish habitat....

But DFO said two paragraphs earlier that Shell could not. It sounds a bit like Alice in Wonderland, so I would like your comments on that.

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, we didn't look at that particular one. We took a sample of quite a number of projects, so we don't know that particular one. But I would say that the impression you have in reading that is similar to our overall findings in the projects that we did find.

As an example, your excerpt mentions the importance of compensation, and that's basically the notion that if you destroy habitat here, then the proponents have to build habitat somewhere else. We found in the projects we looked at that fewer than one-third had proper compensation plans available before the decision. That's clearly a requirement of the department's own policy.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Just for information purposes, are we saying that when DFO issues a permit, whether it be this kind of project or another, really, the deciding factor is whether there will be economic and socio-economic benefits? In other words, stringent science doesn't seem to factor into the decision. The decision seems to be based on whether that community, in the eyes of the government, needs the economic benefits.

[Neil Maxwell]

I really don't think we can speculate as to why what happened has happened. Clearly, what happened is that the department set up a number of policies about the kind of information it should have before it when it makes these kinds of decisions. Across the board what we found was that it doesn't have the sorts of things that it says itself it needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Warawa, you get to take us straight to 11 o'clock.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I wanted to begin with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Beginning in 2007 and ending in 2013, the act stipulates that the government in power produce an annual climate change report. Has the government met that requirement?

[Scott Vaughan]

It has, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Those reports were received in August 2007. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, I think the month is correct. Then in 2008 I believe it was in May.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It was May. Okay. So those two reports were received.

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, sir.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

And the next report is due at the end of May this year.

[Scott Vaughan]

I believe that's correct, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So we are up to date on our reports, on that legal requirement.

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I want to talk about the report on fisheries. It says in the report that many of the issues raised in this report are long-standing and have been identified in previous audits. There has been little progress since 2001, when you last reported. What is the history of the audits? When have they taken place?

[Eric Hellsten]

If you look in the chapter--it would be in paragraph 1.3, I believe--there are four audits noted.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That first audit was in December 1997. Is that correct?

[Eric Hellsten]

That's correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. And that was in chapter 28, “Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Pacific Salmon: Sustainability of the Resource Base”, in 1997. There was a follow-up, an additional audit, in May 1999. Is that correct?

[Eric Hellsten]

Yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

And there was one again in October 2001 and then again in October 2004.

[Eric Hellsten]

Yes, that's correct, Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That was a previous Liberal government throughout those four audits, and you've made a number of strong recommendations in this current audit. Have you found an equally strong response from the government to this audit?

[Neil Maxwell]

Chair, with regard to both Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, I would say first that the response suggests that they are quite serious about fixing the problems. Again, when they have persisted for 23 years, you always take that with a grain of salt. But we're impressed with what we see.