Blaine Calkins

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, we live in a fantastic country where a member of Parliament from Alberta can get up and engage in a debate on the snow crab fishery and the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada.

I really enjoy the time I spend with my colleagues here tonight, most of whom are on the fisheries committee.

In spite of some of the rhetoric we hear and some of the drama we see from members in the House, I think fishermen, whether they live on the east or the west coast or whether they are involved in the freshwater fishery across our country, can all take some comfort in the fact that, while parliamentarians appear to disagree for political reasons, we generally all agree that the state of the fishery is so important to all the affected communities that we often come together and form a good consensus on the policies that affect so many Canadians' lives.

My background is that I am privileged to have had an opportunity to go to university and get a zoology degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences. I have worked as a professional fishing guide. I have worked as a fisheries technician for the Alberta fish and wildlife department. I have worked as a conservation officer and as a national park warden enforcing the Fisheries Act.

I will keep to my notes on the facts pertaining to the scientific end of things because that is where I am most comfortable in having my discussions.

I would like to provide some important context about the science that lies behind the snow crab quotas allotted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the licence holders.

Canada relies on scientific data to make informed decisions about the management of all stocks, whether they are freshwater stocks, finfish stocks or shellfish stocks, and that definitely includes snow crab.

It is impossible to determine the precise number of snow crab in the Gulf of St. Lawrence at any given moment, just as it is impossible to determine how many walleye there are in Pigeon Lake in Alberta. We do not know exactly how many there are. They do not have passports. They do not register. We do not even know how many Canadians are living in Canada. We even guess at that.

Simply put, no perfect method exists to estimate the exact size of any wild stock. Science uses wildlife management. Species management relies on a variety of techniques to make our best estimate. Our best hope is to apply those scientifically proven methods in a consistent and meticulous manner to provide the best estimate of abundance with the technology presently available and to continually strive to improve sampling and analytical methodologies. That is precisely the approach followed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the snow crab fishery.

Prior to the 1980s, fishers were the primary source of data about the health of snow crab stocks. At that time fisheries officials would review log books and reported landings to estimate the size of the snow crab stock.

These methods documented sizeable swings in the annual snow crab harvest in the southern portion of the gulf. From its humble beginnings in the mid-1960s, the harvest grew to exceed 33,000 tonnes in 1982, then dropped to 13,600 tonnes in 1987, and fell below 9,000 tonnes three years later. Since then landings have continued to fluctuate significantly.

In 1988 scientists introduced a new assessment method, which was based on conducting a census of snow crab abundance using an annual trawl survey. While the method has been significantly refined over the years, it still adheres to the same rigorous scientific protocols. Here is how it works.

Following the close of the fishery each year, a crew of scientists travels to a series of 300 sites in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The sites are chosen carefully, and samples are gathered from all four areas where commercial fishers harvest snow crab. Each snow crab is accurately measured and counted and returned to the sea.

The scientists aim to measure the relative abundance of various categories of crab. For example, it is important to know the number of mature females, which are not retained in the commercial fishery, as well as the commercial-sized and undersized males. This information enables researchers to estimate the current number of commercial-sized males, those with a carapace size of at least 95 millimetres, and it also enables researchers to predict the number of crabs expected to mature and recruit to the fishery in the next few years.

All of this data is then subjected to sophisticated analysis using geo-statistical methods. This analysis enables scientists to estimate, in a relatively accurate manner, not only the overall size of crab stocks, but also how the stock is likely to change in the short term.

Tracking of annual fluctuations in snow crab stocks is crucial for two reasons: one, because the estimates from this year influence decisions about catch quotas for future years and, two, because snow crab populations tend to fluctuate according to a relatively predictable cycle.

The reasons for this regular fluctuation are not completely understood, although each cycle tends to last approximately 10 years.

The 2005 fishery marked the peak of the most recent cycle, and the stock has been in a declining phase since that time. Given this reality, many stakeholders were understandably concerned about the results of the latest sampling.

This year, as is always the case, data from the trawl survey along with the analysis were subject to a science peer review. In February stakeholders of a number of groups participated in this peer review, and DFO scientists and fisheries management officials were joined by their counterparts from the provinces, the fishing industry and first nations communities.

Scientific experts in the field of crustacean stock assessment from within and outside DFO were also invited. During the last peer review, an expert from the United States National Marine Fisheries Service participated.

The review confirmed what many already suspected, that the stock is still in its declining phase. The commercial biomass of snow crab in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence was estimated at 26,100 tonnes for the 2010 fishing season. This represents a 46% decline from the figure for the 2009 fishery. The review also indicated that the stock is not expected to start its increase before 2012.

Although these facts may be unwelcome, they must not be ignored. Five years ago, during the peak of the cycle, the estimated biomass exceeded 84,000 tonnes and the 2005 quota for the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence was set at 36,100 tonnes. Each year since then, both the biomass levels and the annual quota have fallen gradually. Last year the estimated biomass was 48,000 tonnes and the quota was set at 20,900 tonnes. Anyone familiar with the snow crab fishery had every reason to expect a further reduction this year.

The sampling, analysis and review processes are all reliable and sound. The methodology is well established, credible and dependable. The analytical models are compliant to scientific standards for correlating resources and geography.

For more than 20 years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has relied on these estimates to set appropriate quotas. Fisheries management groups around the world follow similar processes.

The same information is used for much more than setting catch limits. Stakeholders rely on the data to develop and implement their own fishing strategies. Many commercial fishing groups, for instance, use the data to determine how much time and effort they should invest in crab harvesting in a given season and which areas they should target.

Sharing data is the essence of modern science. Science is increasingly at the centre of fisheries management not only in Canada but also around the world. The reason for this is simple. Basing management decisions on scientific data offers the best way to conserve the ocean's renewable resources in an era of rising demand for those same resources. In our quest for sustainable fisheries, science remains our best ally.

The guiding principle of sustainable fisheries management is caution. The precautionary approach, as it is called, acknowledges that while our understanding of fisheries and ocean habitats is limited, the consequences of long-term overfishing are all too familiar: the collapse of fish stocks and crises in coastal communities have resulted.

The truth is that science offers the best hope for understanding the world we live in and for achieving a sustainable snow crab fishery now and well into the future.

[Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I was a little puzzled by the answer that my colleague gave to my question. I think her answer to my question was that presumably, if nobody did anything wrong or the government did all it was supposed to do, there would be no cost to the government. This begs the question of why the bill is needed in the first place, but I digress.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to the issue of environmental rights and Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

In 1972, the delegates to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment recognized the connection between economic development and the environment. Some 15 years later, the World Commission on Environment and Development took this concept further when it defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

That definition has helped shape public policy, business strategies and individual choices for nearly a quarter of a century. It envisions a world where all decisions, including what we produce, what we buy, where we live and what we value, are informed by the need to take care of our planet. The concept of sustainable development is powerful because it recognizes the need to pay attention to and support three mutually reinforcing pillars: economic, social and environmental.

This is why our government has committed to the protection of the environment while maintaining a balance with the social and economic priorities of Canadians. Particularly in this context of economic recovery, our government wants to ensure that our economy remains one of the strongest in the industrialized world and that Canada is able to succeed in the modern economy. This is why in the last Speech from the Throne our government committed to building the jobs and industries of the future by completing the second year of Canada's economic action plan.

Bill C-469 recognizes in its preamble that Canadians understand the close linkages between a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and Canada's economic, social, cultural and intergenerational security. However, the government is concerned that the bill may not give appropriate emphasis to each of the three pillars of sustainable development. Bill C-469 sets out rights and government responsibilities related to environmental protection and it is not clear whether these are appropriately balanced with other socio-economic goals.

The bill introduces a series of substantive environmental rights. First, it would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as an element of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. It would also place an obligation on the government to protect this right. Finally, it would recognize the Government of Canada as the trustee of Canada's environment and oblige the government to preserve it in accordance with the public trust.

Bill C-469 establishes these rights in a much stronger, less balanced way than other similar environmental rights laws. Other Canadian jurisdictions that have adopted environmental rights legislation have taken an approach that allows the government to manage environmental, social and economic priorities together.

For example, the right to a healthful environment in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is limited to what is provided by the laws of Quebec. Similarly, the protection of the right to a healthful environment, referred to in the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights is limited to the means provided by the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.

In addition to the substantive environmental rights proposed in Bill C-469, the bill proposes a series of procedural environmental rights and obligations meant to improve public participation in environmental decisions and enforcement as well as access to environmental information. These include an obligation on the Government of Canada to ensure effective access to environmental information by making such information available to the public in a reasonable, timely and affordable fashion.

The bill could also oblige the government to ensure opportunities for effective, informed and timely public participation in environmental decision making, the right to request an investigation of an alleged environmental offence, whistleblower protection and the right to take action against offenders who cause environmental harm. It is important to keep in mind that the objectives of public participation in environmental decision making and access to environmental information are already provided for under existing federal legislation and policies.

For example, the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators initiative, renewed in budget 2010, provides Canadians with regular information on the state of our environment.

We have recently passed the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which requires the development of a sustainable development strategy that makes the government more accountable to Parliament for environmental decision-making.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, also provides for many of the rights promoted in Bill C-469, including access to proposed and existing policies, guidelines and regulations through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, environmental registry, provisions for public participation in various stages of decision-making under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, whistleblower protection and the right to request that the Minister of the Environment conduct an investigation of an alleged offence and potentially to proceed with an environmental protection action against an alleged offender.

The procedural rights provided under existing federal law contribute to the goals of public participation and access to information while recognizing responsible management of government and court resources.

While placing meaningful obligations on government and providing opportunities for recourse to the courts, the existing rights are tailored to ensure that procedural rights do not overwhelm government capacity or judicial resources. In turn, this ensures the three pillars of sustainable development are taken into account.

The procedural rights under existing federal laws are similar to the approach in other Canadian jurisdictions. For example, similar obligations and rights related to access to information and public participation are provided under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.

Bill C-469, on the other hand, lacks similar limitations and could therefore have significant impacts on government resources.

Other procedural rights are also included in Bill C-469. For example, the bill would authorize any resident of Canada or entity that believes that an act, regulation, other statutory instrument or policy should be amended, repealed or made in order to protect the environment, to apply to the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development for a review by the appropriate minister. This raises concerns over the extent and scope of the review to be undertaken, as well as the roles and accountabilities of Parliament, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the governor in council and ministers.

Finally, Bill C-469 would require that government bills introduced in the House of Commons and all new regulations be examined by the Auditor General to identify inconsistencies with the proposed environmental bill of rights. This would fundamentally change the role of the Auditor General by imposing on her a duty to provide legal opinions to Parliament. In contrast, under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights the obligation on the government to respond to such a request applies only to prescribed ministers.

In closing, while the government believes in the protection of the environment and the recognition of environmental rights, it is important to stress that the principle of sustainable development includes a balancing of environmental, economic and social goals.

It is also important to stress the existing environmental procedural rights under federal laws. Transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making, access to environmental information, and environmental accountability are already entrenched in our environmental laws in a manner that promotes financial responsibility and access to justice.

[Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.

Previously, the New Democratic Party brought forward Bill C-311, which was just going through the process here in the House. At committee, we heard from various experts and witnesses, some of whom said that they produced the costing associated with Bill C-311 through their various reports.

Has the member asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any other third party, or any party at all, for a cost analysis of what this proposed bill would cost the taxpayers of Canada?

[Petitions, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents who are so outraged at the prospect of having to register their long guns. It is an affront to their sensibilities. I am happy to table this petition on their behalf.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to get rid of the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry.

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in its infinite wisdom has sent the member for Papineau into Lethbridge, Alberta, this weekend to teach Liberals how to win. You heard me right, Mr. Speaker. The son of Pierre Elliott, the creator of the national energy program, is off to Alberta to teach Liberals how to win. That is like sending Colonel Sanders to an animal rights convention to lecture about the rights of chickens.

Just what will the member for Papineau preach to Albertans? Will he tell us more about the Liberals' plan for a culture war? Will he promote the Liberals' support for the long gun registry? Will he preach the virtues of a Liberal carbon tax? Will he tell Albertans about the Liberals' shutting the door forever to unilingual Canadians from serving their country on the Supreme Court? We would not be surprised. The member for Papineau already thinks unilingual Canadians are lazy.

Albertans and Canadians know that the Liberal Party just does not speak for them. That is because Liberals are not in it for Canadians; they are just in it for themselves.

[Firearms Registry, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in an April 21 interview, Calgary Police Chief Rick Hanson echoed what our government has said all along, that the gun registry is just a placebo and that it has not really worked all that well. He also said that lawmakers should focus more on sentencing.

Would the Minister of Public Safety inform the House what this Conservative government has done to address Police Chief Hanson's concerns?

[Petitions, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a petition signed by a handful of Albertans that call on the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Transatlantic Forum held in Washington, D.C., United States of America, December 7 and 8, 2009.

[Sealing Industry, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to signal hope for an important shift in international public opinion on the merits of the EU ban on Canadian seal products. This week, the influential British publication The Economist perfectly summarized the nature of this conflict.

The Canadian government clearly takes the issue seriously....

The Canadian government, for its part, feels duty bound to protect the interests of a number of its poorer citizens against lobbying from special interest groups a long way away.

The evidence that the EU takes the issue seriously, however, is harder to find. The ban appears to be a cheap way to be seen to be doing something to protect animals, thus appeasing the animal welfare lobby by attacking a group of people who cannot fight back.

I can assure this House that our government will not waver in our commitment to protect vulnerable Canadian sealers from the well-funded misinformation campaigns of professional anti-seal-hunt lobby groups. We applaud The Economist for speaking the truth on this most important issue.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, with whom I sit on the environment committee, if she has heard the fantastic news that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, for the first time in a number of years, have actually been decreased to the tune of 2.1%.

That report was file today. It is good news for Canadians. It is clearly a signal that the government understands, after a previous Liberal government failed and signed on to these glorified numbers, much like what we saw in Bill C-311, which passed yesterday. The Liberals did not do anything about it, other than attempt to ruin Canada's economy and, in particular, Alberta's economy.

I wonder if the member can stand in her place and actually congratulate the government for getting greenhouse gas emissions down with all the investments that we put into the budgets previous to budget 2010, which her party voted against.