I would beg to differ.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
I would beg to differ.
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
In fact, DFO science has done some work around the effluent and whether it was toxic to fish. It doesn't just contain calcium sulphate, it contains some metals as well. The pH of it is toxic to fish. DFO science has done experiments on it. It is toxic to fish.
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
The pH and also toxicity.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
My question is, can't they take it out of the pipe? This is just a point of clarification. Is there a possibility of taking that out of the pipe instead of dumping it into the ocean?
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
They could have, but they didn't, and it's now moot, because it doesn't operate.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you for that.
You mentioned a lobster fishery close to the plant. Is that a designated fishery to prevent those lobsters from migrating out of the bay and getting in with the other lobsters?
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Exactly. It's what's called a controlled fishing area. The lobsters are caught to prevent them from going into--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
I don't have recent numbers, but historically it has been in the tens of thousands.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you.
Sorry, Mr. Cuzner, but I needed those two points of clarification.
Mr. Cuzner.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you very much.
First, I want to apologize for not being here. I had to speak in the House, and this is the type of issue--
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
For not missing me.
Obviously, it's something that you don't come in and get ramped up to in any quick notion, especially if you were able to reference my chemistry marks from St. FX.
What I'm looking at is my next-door riding, Sydney--Victoria, the home of the Sydney tar ponds. You may have heard of them. Any environmental focus I've had over the last number of years has been consumed by the tar ponds issue.
As I watched the Belledune situation evolve, why wasn't there a CEAA panel or investigation? Why wasn't there a CEAA review done? What we have to concern ourselves with is why wasn't this triggered right from the outset? The minister at the time probably wanted to do the right thing, but the horse was out of the barn. From a process point of view, why was it not subject to review? Who dropped the ball?
12:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
I have to say that everybody did.
The way it's been described is that this project came into the province on cat's feet, meaning it just sort of appeared; that there was some kind of negotiation going on that the citizens were really not privy to prior to its becoming a fait accompli. It was only afterwards, when we made right to information requests, that we began to see how it was that this could have happened.
And really, I think what we're talking about, from the residents' and the fishermen's point of view, is that nobody thinks about atmospheric deposition—that the emissions from a facility could actually fall into the bay and contaminate wildlife or fisheries. It's not in the scope of the imagination of DFO, even though the records of this happening are numerous. Everybody believed in the 99.99% number. People looked at the area and said, they need the jobs, and it was jobs at all cost. That mentality has pervaded the region.
So really, everybody dropped the ball. And when they did try to do something about it, as you perhaps know, when then-minister Minister Anderson intervened and said we're going to get a review and we're going to have a transboundary effect study, it was too late, and it lost on appeal in court.
We're here today, I think, to put DFO on notice that it must broaden, not constrain, its regulatory influence or its regulatory responsibility. It must start looking at these types of issues.
For example, another important issue that is out there—what I call a horizon issue—that is coming is seabed gravel mining and extraction.
What's interesting, Mr. Chairman and members, is that over the years DFO has been transferring responsibility for a lot of its regulatory responsibility to other agencies and associations. For example, DFO signed an MOU in 2004 with the Canadian Electrical Association to deal with those habitat management issues—those fish passages, and all of that. So DFO is not going to look at it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Where the community is now, obviously what's up front and most important is harm reduction, and then some short-term—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Yes. Well, they could be, yes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Oh, they are?
So it's harm reduction, and then immediate, and then long-term....
Where do we go from here? From a federal perspective, I guess the harm reduction is the most immediate. I don't know. Do you have any suggestions, besides shutting it down?
12:10 p.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
May I answer the question?