Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2007

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

I have a very simple question pertaining to the Environmental Process Modernization Plan, and it involves a very specific file, a very specific situation. Mr. Blaine Calkins talked about it earlier. It is a project that appears to me to be over with. Fortunately, it was never launched. I am talking about the Bennett incinerator in Belledune. The question I have pertains to the future.

Are we not running the risk of finding ourselves once again faced with this kind of situation, given the environmental analysis process for this type of project? This is very close to Chaleur Bay. Emissions from the burning, the incineration of the material are spewed out into the atmosphere. There can be emissions of furan or in any event of toxic substances.

We had a meeting with the people from the Department with regard to this project in particular. From what I understood, based upon the analysis model for this type of project, the conclusion was that there would not necessarily be any danger or impact for the environment. However, my belief and that of the locals is that there is an environmental risk that should be assessed for what it is and that there should be an independent review.

In that sense, does the Environmental Process Modernization Plan that is in the works or that you have planned for going to change the analysis models for this type of project, or will what is in place remain the same?

[Sue Kirby]

Generally speaking, the Environmental Process Modernization Plan aims at changing our processes in order to make them more effective.

With regard to the models issue, it is not this plan that will change them. They will change if there is a scientific change, if the science develops new models that will deliver different results.

What we have discussed today with regard to the Environmental Process Modernization Plan will not change the models for...

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

That was my understanding of the situation as well, and I am somewhat disappointed. I understand full well that in order to improve effectiveness, further work for change must be done peripherally with regard to the environmental assessment of projects. However, I would like to have seen not only peripheral work, but also work on the very object of the project. In other words, what worries me is not so much the analysis process, but rather the way in which the file or a file of this type is analyzed. This is why my impression — and the people who appeared before you stated this clearly — is that, given the present modeling process, that is what must be questioned.

In that sense, if such is not yet the case, are there any changes planned with regard to the modelling process?

[Sue Kirby]

Ms. Watson-Wright might be able to talk about the models if time allows. The changes in the process that we have discussed today will not change the objectives, and the whole purpose is focussed on fish habitat protection. We use the most effective models.

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

Ms. Watson-Wright?

[Wendy Watson-Wright]

Forgive me, sir, but would you repeat the question?

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

Very well.

Is the Department planning on studying the way in which the files, like for example the Bennett incinerator in Belledune, are processed, in order for the analysis model to be changed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Quickly, if you could, Dr. Watson-Wright. We're over time here.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

It'll be very short. I would like to get back to you on that, because I would have to discuss this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay. Very good.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Murray and officials, for being here.

Let me start with a philosophical question because I'm not sure we have a clear answer to it yet. I think it's where Mr. Cuzner was going on his last question.

With respect to Larocque and APPFA, there are two interpretations of it. On the one hand, there's the view, I think held by departmental lawyers and maybe some others, that the use of fish in collaborative arrangements to fund science is something the minister can't do because he doesn't have the legal authority to do it in any statute that applies to it. On the other hand, I think there are some who believe, perhaps a more popular sentiment, that the decision said that it's something he shouldn't do--perhaps in addition to “can't do”--because he doesn't have the moral authority to do it because it's not his fish.

I'm wondering if any of you would like to comment on those two interpretations.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

Mr. Chairman, that one is quite subtle.

As I understand it, the court decision was that the minister did not own the fish and he did not have the authority to allocate fish for the purpose of funding or generating financing for any of the department's programs. It was not that he shouldn't, but he must not. I think it was pretty explicit--must not.

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

If Parliament then gives him the right to do that, is it something he should do? Maybe now he can do this, but should he do it?

[Dr. William Doubleday]

I don't believe it was a moral conclusion. It was simply that Parliament has not given the authority to do that.

[Larry Murray]

Perhaps I could wade in. It is our opinion, and in the context of the policy framework we'll be taking forward, and in the context of Bill C-45, as currently constructed, that it is something that the minister should do. In other words, we see shared stewardship as being a fundamental underpinning to the conservation of the fishery. It's challenging, as the chair has pointed out, on how you get there, but certainly at the moment the legal advice is “cannot”, and so we're working really hard to figure out how to move forward now and in the immediate future. Certainly it is the current view that some version of shared stewardship, supported by some version of joint project agreements and so on, is a good thing for the fishery.

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

I think the question will remain whether the allocation of fish to arrive at those collaborative arrangements is a good thing or not, but that will be under debate, for sure.

Principle 5 of the general policies principles in your policy document says: “...seek to develop collaborative arrangements...in order to reduce the direct costs to government and to maximize program effectiveness and responsiveness.” There are two quite different things, I think. One is about saving the government money and one is about doing it better. I think there is a suspicion that we entered into more and more collaborative arrangements as the funding pressures grew, and it really wasn't about doing it any better, it was about saving the government money.

Do you have a comment on that?

[Dr. William Doubleday]

The policy is as you quoted it. The history is that the number, the magnitude of these agreements did increase during the late 1990s. It was during a period of budgetary restraint, so there's certainly a correlation there. I believe many of these agreements resulted in improvements in the management of the fishery and the assessment of the stocks, so that's a factor too. I don't think it's easy to disentangle the factors that were influencing the changes over time.

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

Mr. Chair, if there is time, I think Mr. Calkins still has a question or two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

There actually isn't. You're at your five minutes. You have five seconds left and I know that's not nearly enough time.

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

How about another round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I was assuming we would do another round.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Related to that topic, let's go back to the fact that we have a funding shortfall this year of $24 million. The allotment is $11 million. Did you say there was an amount of money in there that can be realized, that JPAs are okay because they are not contradictory because of the Larocque decision? I'm simply trying to identify that money. Of the anticipated $24 million, there is a big portion of that which will be okay to proceed with. Is that correct?

[Larry Murray]

From my perspective, it's not a $24 million shortfall, to be clear from our analysis; it is a work in progress. As we worked our way across the country, our analysis was that we needed in the order of $12 million a year for the science part of this, that the overall amount of money in play at the time of the analysis was about $24 million. But we're not saying we have a shortfall in this particular area of $24 million minus $12 million, if we can put it that way.

I don't know, Bill, if you want to refine that.

[Dr. William Doubleday]

I'll try to answer the question as posed, and if it's not the right answer, then we could provide more later.

Basically, collaborative agreements are okay. Collaborative agreements that are financed through an allocation of fish to raise money are not okay. So we are continuing to seek collaborative arrangements with the industry to collaborate in assessing the stocks and supporting the management of the fishery.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm sorry, Mr. Doubleday, I don't mean to interrupt here, but I'm trying to figure out where that is. I'm trying to make it tangible to me and the people I'm trying to give advice to about this. When you say collaborative arrangements, can you give me an example?