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.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I'd like you to explain more about that and say whether you have any suggestions as to what—
11:40 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Right now, the way the management system works in DFO is that they allow a certain amount of habitat to be destroyed by the effluent coming out of pipes, out of every industry's—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
But what you indicated is not “some”; it's the total destruction of the area.
11:40 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
It is, absolutely, and what I'm saying is that we really have to.... For example, in the case of the fertilizer plant, all that gypsum, back in 1968—and this was really quite smart—the minister said if we're going to start seeing an impact, you're going to have to take that effluent and treat it on land.
11:40 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
No. They knew this was going to be a problem, and they said as soon as we start seeing a problem you have to start figuring out another way of treating that effluent. And they didn't do it, because once you give a licence to do something, it's really hard to take it back or make changes in the process.
So really, we're left with a legacy of industries that have really...what choice does DFO have? It licensed them. It's very hard to take that licence away. But what we're saying now is, we've learned from this. Let's take a different approach to our effluent pipes.
Last week DFO and Environment Canada allowed two mining companies in Newfoundland to dump their effluent into two lakes. They know that's going to kill the fish in them, but here's the compromise DFO made: you can kill those two lakes, but you have to create two other lakes.
Imagine creating lakes. This is called the “no net loss of fish habitat” policy. It's been on the books in DFO since the mid-1980s. It's called no net loss. If you destroy the habitat, whether it's 44 hectares or not, you have to create that habitat somewhere else. That could be just a matter of throwing some rocks into an area and saying the lobsters now live there—that's habitat; that's a fair trade-off.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
But you tell me—it was either you or Mr. Landry who said it—that all the fish at the end of this pipe are contaminated; they have to be disposed of; they're not fit for human consumption.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
How far will that expand? That will cause more difficulty as you continue.
11:40 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
It's being done in Belledune right now. The lobsters that are caught in the harbour and in the lagoon are caught and incinerated, and they've been so since 1980.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I think one of the biggest arguments to make—and of course that's why you're here, to make sure it's made a bigger issue—is that it can become a trade problem. It can become a Canada-U.S. issue, or it could be that our shellfish would have a problem entering the U.S. market, dare I mention it. But it's something that has to be.... Would somebody want to comment on that?
You have already commented on it, and, sir, you also commented. People like to say that these things are done because of.... Nobody wants it in their own area. You referred to education as the problem in your area. If you want to refer further to that area, I would be interested, because I take it that you're indicating it wouldn't be done in other areas, possibly. Is that what you were referring to?
11:40 a.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen Inc.
Not really, no.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
You referred to education as a problem in your area, if I understood you correctly. Were you inferring that if people would have been more forceful at the time, this would not have happened? Is that what you meant?
11:40 a.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen Inc.
Yes. Generally speaking, there is a belief that less-educated people will defend themselves less.
Back home, like in Prince Edward Island, people depend on the fish habitat and are aware of it, regardless of their education. Their parents and grandparents fished and their families still depend on fishing. It the habitats are contaminated, there will be no more survival.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
No, but of course overall you want to expand it much beyond that. It's the effect it has. I think we all know that if you destroy habitat, it's destroyed. But what needs to happen here is that.... It's a much bigger issue than just that one area. It can become a trade issue.
Do you wish to expand on that?
11:45 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
If I may, it's interesting that you raised the trade issue, because—
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Only because I believe it was raised previously. I wouldn't dare mention it, if it wasn't.
11:45 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Let me quote from a 1980 briefing note prepared by DFO inspection branch officials on finding out that there were high cadmium and lead levels in some of the commercial species in the Baie des Chaleurs. I obtained the memo under the right to information, and it says in part—it's a long memo:
If the high levels of cadmium are confirmed, this could have severe socio-economic and ecological consequences. High levels of cadmium could raise havoc in European and U.S. markets
So way back in 1980 DFO was very concerned about these high levels, and you may recall that at the time fishermen were very concerned.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I believe when you were explaining it, they were concerned. Fishermen are concerned. You also had that DFO was concerned, but I think you explained that there hasn't been a lot done.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
I appreciate that, Mr. MacAulay, but we are out of time.
We're going to move on to Monsieur Blais.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Hello to both of you and also to those accompanying you.
It is important for the members of this committee not only to be made aware of the situation, but also informed of the various reasons for concern about marine resources in the Baie des Chaleurs.
One of the reasons for concern, and you mentioned it in your presentation, is the cumulative effect. I know the Belledune site. It is not as if there were no other polluting plants there and someone wanted to operate an incinerator. Belledune has a history of pollution, as you mentioned earlier.
I would like to go a bit further and get more detail about this cumulative effect. You also mentioned that the Baie des Chaleurs region is susceptible to this kind of effect. If we were dealing with a river, the situation would not be the same. However, when we are dealing with a bay, where the water movement is less strong. . . . I would like you to give more detail about the cumulative effect.
11:45 a.m.
Science Advisor, Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc.
Exactly. As I described at the outset--and forgive me for taking so much time--unless you know the ecosystem, it's hard to understand what the fate of contamination is.
I've been a marine biologist for 29 years, and I've worked in a variety of institutions. In the Baie des Chaleurs, we have this unique situation. With the contaminants that are either deposited directly from effluent pipes or from stacks in the area, essentially most of that pollution stays, because of this unique oceanographic feature. It's right at the mouth of the bay in the Paspébiac area. Whatever goes into the bay stays in the bay. Over time, as various government agencies have reported, there is this accumulation of contaminants in the sediment in the water and, in turn, in the species. So right now we're saying that the pollution burden in this ecosystem is enough. We don't need one more gram of whatever contaminant could be coming into that.
There are certain things we cannot control, such as long-range transport from the United States, but we can control what happens on our shores. Whatever industries we want to site there, we must start thinking about atmospheric deposition dispersion and deposition into the marine environment.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
It is a well-known fact that the Baie des Chaleurs was known for its rich marine resources. Perhaps Mr. Landry could answer my question at greater length, but over time, given the experience in Belledune and other places in particular, things have changed. Before, for example, waste from all municipalities ended up in the Baie des Chaleurs; this still happens in some places. Could you describe to us in a bit more detail what fishing in the Baie des Chaleurs was like in the past and what it is now? For example, the lobster harvested in Belledune was mentioned. That lobster is not edible; it is incinerated. Yet, the resource could be very interesting, economically speaking, but there is a history behind it. I would like to hear your words on this.
11:50 a.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Acadian Regional Federation of Professional Fishermen Inc.
As industries set up around the Bay, places become contaminated and fishing areas are closed off. It used to be that you could fish anywhere in the Bay. Now, in the Baie de Caraquet, which is adjacent to the Baie des Chaleurs, shellfish harvesting is banned. In the Eel River Bar area, there is a ban on clams, because they are contaminated.