Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

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

On the other hand, I could mention an issue that I am well aware of and that the department knows relatively well: Bennett Environmental Inc., in Belledune. This company will be building a toxic waste incinerator that will soon be operational, according to plans. Fortunately, it is not yet so, but that is another story.

Like the people in that area, we maintain that no independent environmental assessment has been carried out. When asked about this at the beginning of the project, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said that, according to its analytical grid, the polluting emissions coming from the chimney will not cause any new problems for marine species. However, lobster in the Belledune sector is not harvested for consumption, but rather to eliminate it from the food chain.

There is already a problematic situation in Belledune, in the baie des Chaleurs. There are plans to install an incinerator, there is the precautionary principle and so on. The marine resource is already at risk in this sector, because lobster is harvested only to eliminate it from the food chain, and not for human consumption. We are under the impression that there is a problem.

[Sylvain Paradis]

I will try to answer quickly.

The problem is that we are talking on two different levels. On the one hand, there are the risk assessments which are of a biological nature, and on the other hand, there is the more comprehensive environmental assessment program that Environment Canada applies to all big projects.

My work deals with risk assessments concerning specific species, on the introduction and movement of the species and activities of that kind. You are talking about a much broader strategy that covers several other lines of business and that would normally be piloted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

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

All right. Thank you.

[Larry Murray]

Ms. Kirby could perhaps respond.

[Sue Kirby]

We have discussed this issue several times. You are certainly aware of the fact that we asked the promoter to change the plans, which was done. The change makes an environmental assessment by DFO useless.

Following discussions between various departments, including Environment Canada, it was determined that the changes brought about to the plans eliminated the possibility of major repercussions. We know that there are several causes for the pollution in the baie des Chaleurs. There is also a scientific aspect, that is to say whether or not the pollution has an impact on the species. As far as the environmental assessment is concerned, we accepted the project following the change in plans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Ms. Kirby.

Mr. MacAulay or Mr. Simms, do you have a question?

Yes, Mr. Murray.

[Larry Murray]

Mr. Chair, it's good to have questions about science and funding and what we are up to, and we have recently come through a major science renewal initiative, so if it would interest the committee, when time permits, we could have Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright and some of us come and give a presentation and kick around the science question at length. I think the kinds of questions that were asked are good questions. I think we've tried to improve the overall program, but that might be a stand-alone session for the committee down the road that you might want to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

A very good idea, Mr. Murray. It would be beneficial.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I agree, Mr. Murray. It would be a good idea.

Sometimes there are inshore fishermen who might have some concern with the science at DFO. You've probably heard some things over the years that might lead you to believe there was some doubt. You have to have science and you have to know where you're going, but this new proposal that you are going to bring before the committee.... I think if you involve the fishermen more in what you're trying to do, then you would have a little more success with DFO. Is that the intent? I think there's more money going into science--there has to be--but also, for your own credibility as members of Parliament and government, I think it's essential that the fishermen have more input so they respect what they're told.

Personally, I have had a number of issues, like the herring fishery and other things, where science wasn't always on my side, but the fishermen were. Things like that have to be addressed and they have to be dealt with.

Is this what you're planning or going to try to do?

[Larry Murray]

I would say, as Mr. Paradis said in response to the last question, partnership is a key element of the science renewal. I think in some areas we have more challenges than in others. Certainly the minister is seized of the point you made. In fact, we invested, I think, $1.2 million this year in a shared project between fishermen and scientists to get a better handle on what is the state of the inshore versus offshore northern cod scenario, following actually a number of hearings by this committee.

I think the issue of cod in the northern gulf, in particular, is a challenging one, where there is a gap between what scientists believe and what fishermen believe, and we have been trying to work together on that to reach a common understanding. Certainly the place of traditional knowledge of both fishermen and first nations and so on is a part of where we're trying to go.

I'm not sure we'll always or ever make everyone totally happy, but I take your point. It's a valid point, and we need to try harder in that regard.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

May I ask you one more question, sir? How much money is spent on science?

[Larry Murray]

About $216 million.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Not to criticize, but I point out that you tell me that $1.2 million of the $216 million was shared with fishermen, so I would hope there would be an attempt made to involve fishermen and first nations people more. There's really very little or no involvement at the moment. I know $1.2 million is a large figure, but over the whole scope of $216 million, it's not very much.

[Larry Murray]

I was using one example of something that didn't exist previously but does exist or did exist this year. There are a number of partnership initiatives, but I don't want to sound defensive, and I don't want to give the impression that I think we're doing enough of it.

I don't disagree with your point that we probably need to do more; I think we are trying to do more. Part of the science renewal has been reaching out to all sorts of partners, including the fishing industry. I don't know whether Mr. Paradis--

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'm not criticizing you, sir, and I'm not criticizing the Department of Fisheries. That you have more respect for what you do in the end is my concern--it's for all of us, government included, and members of Parliament.

[Sylvain Paradis]

We've had a series of collaborative programs, like the fisheries science collaborative program, where the money is shared in partnership with industry people and fishermen to collect the scientific data to improve the validity of our scientific advice. For example, we have the sentinel fisheries, where data collection is done by fishermen and brought forward.

One process that the department has put in place is the Canadian science advisory council, which is very particular to this department. All the scientific information is brought to workshops with industry, universities, and NGOs, to look at the status of the fisheries. We can certainly have more emphasis on the status of the fishery when we do those assessments. But we're trying as much as we can to improve the data collection process jointly with the fishermen to ensure the quality of the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, I'm done. I'm not done, but I'm done for today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Before we adjourn, two items were raised. I just want to make sure we get some response from our officials.

You mentioned that annex A is not in the deck. Can that be supplied?

[Cal Hegge]

Certainly. I can leave that here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That will be perfect, thank you. We appreciate that.

[Cal Hegge]

I apologize for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

The other question was on a breakdown in funding. I wasn't sure if it was going to be supplied or not for the national capital region. Can we also get that?

[Larry Murray]

We'll do that before the minister's appearance.

We also have some questions that came up in the last meeting, and we'll get those to the clerk before the next meeting.

We also have a response to Monsieur Carrier's questions about the overpass. We'll do that before the minister appears as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much for appearing. It was a good discussion today. I thought we might have talked a little more about small craft harbours, but....

The next meeting will be on Thursday, November 23, 2006, from 9 to 11, in Room 701, Promenade.

The meeting is adjourned.