All right. In fact, I'm just wrapping up.
So I won't go into the other example. In the case of Bennett in Belledune, it seems that neither the federal nor provincial government wanted to take responsibility for assessing the potential impacts of atmospheric depositions from this facility. Environment Canada eventually stepped in, but by then it was too late.
This brings me to DFO's proposed environmental process, modernization plan. This plan is underpinned by a risk assessment framework. Basically, projects are assessed on the basis of whether the project is a low, medium, or high risk to fish habitat.
It's not clear how DFO would have assessed the Bennett project under this risk assessment management framework, but given DFO's past record on this file, chances are that atmospheric deposition of contaminants would not be viewed as having an impact on fish habitat at all.
To say that the Bennett project simply fell between the regulatory cracks is an understatement. It is simply one project of a long line of regulatory failures in Belledune. So when DFO officials come before you to explain their new habitat management, ask them the tough questions. Ask them how their risk assessment approach would capture what their risk management framework calls the “subtle effects” of human activity, when their low, medium, high risk scale of impacts is such a coarse and subjective filter for screening projects.
Ask them how DFO intends to investigate the subtle, less obvious impacts of human activities. Ask them why the department is willing to trade off fish habitat that has taken thousands of years to mature for the creation of artificial habitats.