Fisheries Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Inka Milewski]

Where the process is now, just so that everybody here knows, is that the facility does not have a permit to operate yet. It is subject to successful completion of what are called “source test emissions”. That's been done, and it's under review.

Just before I came here, the province announced that it would not make a determination on whether they would give the facility a licence to operate until receiving the result of a hearing, which just finished last week.

And there is an appeal by the citizens before the Assessment and Planning Appeal Board of the New Brunswick government, under the Community Planning Act. The citizens are challenging the construction permit that was given to the facility by the planning commission in the area. That decision will be made perhaps before Christmas, or maybe not until the new year.

The province has said it would not make a decision on whether it would issue a permit until that process has been completed. Then it will decide what to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much for that answer.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to touch on two things. The first one has to do with the mobilization of the public. The mobilization that we have seen in recent years in the area is simply extraordinary. It is not something you necessarily see everywhere.

To give you an idea of the scope of the mobilization, I would say that it is as if 40 per cent of the population of Montreal took to the streets to demonstrate against the construction of an incinerator in that city. Montreal’s population, if you include Montreal-Centre and Greater Montreal, is 2 million. Forty per cent of 2 million is a lot of people.

In the Baie des Chaleurs, 40 per cent of the population was mobilized and took to the streets, and that does not include the petitions signed in New Brunswick and Quebec. The level of mobilization was very high. What do you think?

The other thing is how the committee could assume its responsibilities in this matter; someone has to. Are you suggesting that Department officials be summoned to speak to us about their assessment of the situation?

I would like you to talk about mobilization of the public and what the committee should do in response to your testimony.

[Daniel Landry]

This is one of the first times that I have ever seen such a large segment of the population mobilized on an issue, whether for culture or another issue. We have seen people from the Gaspé Peninsula, the Baie des Chaleurs in New Brunswick and First Nations people come together to denounce the arrival of this plant. The mobilization is unprecedented, and, what is more, it is for the environment.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

What was more worrisome to the public in particular was the fact that no independent study had been conducted.

[Daniel Landry]

People feel abandoned. An environmental impact assessment usually needs to be conducted. There is an expectation that the people who are supposed to protect us should do their duty.

There should at least be an environmental impact assessment on a proposed toxic-waste incinerator.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Waste that comes from the United States.

[Daniel Landry]

It comes from the United States, which is also our main buyer of consumer goods. We need to be cautious because we know the extent to which Americans are able to block access to markets.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Ms. Milewski, you are a scientist. Mobilization to such an extent must confirm your own concerns.

[Inka Milewski]

Like Monsieur Landry, and as I said, I've been at this as a scientist for 29 years, I don't think I've ever seen such an incredible mobilization of human effort against a development project in an area so sparsely populated, relatively, as I have in Belledune. Two and a half thousand people showed up on a sunny November day to say they were not happy about the way this facility came in, and the process.

It really is remarkable, but people given lemons make lemonade up there. Do you know that expression? And what they have done is form a committee that is looking to the future of the Baie des Chaleurs. In some ways this was a wake-up call to them, that if they were going to take the future of their bay to heart and if they wanted to take a direct involvement, they were going to have to become more engaged and were going to have to come up with a plan for future development for the bay. They are doing that. They are looking at a forum that they'd like to have in about a year's time to consider what kind of development they want in the bay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Ms. Milewski.

I'm trying to be very judicious with the subject matter, and I want to point out to our committee members that there seem to be two issues. There is an issue of an industry that certainly seems to be polluting the bay, and it's a very serious issue. I very much see that as a Department of Fisheries and Oceans matter; there's no question. This new incinerator may be more pertinent to the Department of Environment. We don't know yet, and I'm certainly not in any position to judge. But let's stick to DFO issues, Monsieur Blais.

There are a number of issues. I understand, and I'm not trying to make a statement here, but if you've been burned once, you're twice shy, and it very much looks as if that's the issue.

But the pollutants that are in the bay, the mitigation of fish habitat, the issues that are directly affecting DFO, are important issues to this committee, certainly.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witness for coming. I appreciate your presentation, and I appreciate the report as well. I can tell a lot of work has gone into it.

Let me say at the outset that I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one, but let me start, first of all, by asking for a brief thumbnail sketch of what the Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc. is and where you get your funding.

[Inka Milewski]

We're one of the two oldest environmental groups in the country. We started in 1969. We're a membership-based organization, and we're run by a board of 24 people from across the province. We get our funding partly from our membership, from fundraising activities, through grants from private foundations, grants from federal and provincial government agencies, although we don't get many of those because we don't apply for many. It's largely from private foundations, donations, and fundraising activities.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

In terms of the substance of what we're discussing here this morning, we're kind of wide-ranging and have gone beyond just the proposed incinerator and into some past history, so maybe we'll just start there. A number of times you've used a phrase something like “DFO licensed them”. We need to be very clear exactly what that means.

For example, in terms of the fertilizer plant, my understanding is that it began operating in 1967, and frankly I think we'll find that all of the necessary provisions of the law at the time were met. In fact, I think you talked about doing some sort of assessment on whether there was going to be a HADD. That part, section 35 of the act, was enacted in 1976, so I don't think we can expect the department to have applied the law and regulations that were in place at that time.

With respect to the incinerator, I guess what I want you to do is correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that DFO reviewed in August of 2002 the original plan of the Bennett people, so it's not that it passed them by. Based on that review, they required some changes to the design. Those changes were made to the discharge pipe, if I recall, and based on that they concluded there was no likely HADD.

Once having concluded that, the department doesn't have a trigger to engage CEAA, the Canadian Environment Assessment Act. That is the way the law works at this point. Maybe it's wrong and maybe it needs to be changed. You make a compelling point, perhaps.

[Inka Milewski]

You're absolutely right.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

It followed the law at this point. It was later, in 2003, that CEAA approached DFO to do an interdepartmental review, which they did. On the basis of that, in 2004 DFO's opinion was that it was unlikely to cause any noticeable increase in contamination of habitats and resources or have toxic effects on fish populations in that ecosystem or downstream in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Are you just basically disagreeing with that conclusion?

[Inka Milewski]

Yes, absolutely.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

On the basis of what? These are scientists who reach these conclusions too.

[Inka Milewski]

You know, it's interesting. They do it on the basis of a sort of risk assessment of hypotheticals, of possibilities, of models. Frankly, they don't have the capacity as a department to really look as broadly and as deeply at some of these issues.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

If it's not modelling and risk assessment, what is it? You base your conclusions on what?

[Inka Milewski]

They're based on what has happened historically. A good example is what has happened in the Arctic. If you had asked DFO scientists 20 years ago if they would have imagined that the discharge from power plants in Ontario would deposit mercury, or that there would be deposition of PCBs in the Arctic food chain that would bioaccumulate, they would have said no. The problem is that our knowledge is so incomplete.

What I'm saying is that the model they have to adopt for decision-making is the precautionary approach. The burden of proof was not on the facility to prove it wouldn't happen. We have to change that. That's why I'm here. You're absolutely right. In terms of the regulatory situation, there were certain laws that didn't come into effect at certain times. But when there was information.... It's very difficult to go back and say to the company that they have to do this and they have to do that. So why not on the up-front end of things say this is just too much of a risk. And there's a cumulative impact that isn't being assessed either. Looking at cumulative effects is not part of current risk assessment methodologies.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I'm not sure about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Well, I'm quite sure we're out of time on this round.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes, I'm sure about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Monsieur Blais.