Evidence of meeting #53 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us as we consider these clauses to amend the Fisheries Act.
As you've heard, I think, the primary purpose of these clauses in Bill C-45 is to provide greater certainty and clarity to the changes that were in Bill C-38. These are not a substantive change to the old Fisheries Act, as such. In that respect, perhaps I can just begin with a clarification.
I understood, Mr. Taylor, that you're somewhat pessimistic about the environmental damages fund and how much money might be available there. But to clarify what happened there, the intent of the changes in Bill C-38 was to align the penalties section of the fisheries protection program with the Environmental Enforcement Act. To be frank, as I understand it, it kind of overlooked the necessity to specify that those monetary penalties would go to the environmental damages fund, as it does with the Environment Canada violation. So this is just to correct that.
I think it could be argued, as well, that the legal requirement to report harm, which was in Bill C-38, the legal requirement now to deliver on the commitment you make when you receive an authorization.... There's the fact that the penalties are increased, they're significantly higher. Now there is a minimum. There wasn't before.
So I think we're more optimistic than you are that there might be a significant fund that groups like the Atlantic Salmon Federation could benefit from.
I guess the other comment that needs to be made, because I think there is some misunderstanding on this score, is that, to my understanding at least, there has been no January 1 commitment to roll out these changes. The commitment that was in Bill C-38 was only that they would come into force at a later date, to be decided by order in council, by Governor in Council, by cabinet. And cabinet, I assume, will do that when it believes that it's ready to do it and that we have all of the necessary things in place to transition into the new regime.
So as to the notion that it's January 1, 2013, I know that internally the department has said that they have set that, themselves, as a target to have the things in place. When the cabinet believes that everything is in place is quite another matter.
But we do appreciate your feedback about the need to delay until we're ready to roll. We would agree with that.
I will turn to Mr. Wuttke for a bit, if I could. I just want to make sure I understood what you were saying, and reflect, as well, what we were told by a departmental official.
We were told that the term “land claims agreement” kind of subsumes within it the notion of a treaty. Yet your comment made it sound as though you didn't agree with that. I wonder if you, as the AFN's general counsel, could provide any clarity to this committee on that.
9:30 a.m.
General Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
With respect to the land claim agreement and the definition, as you know, land claim agreements are usually done where there's no treaty at this point. That will mainly be in parts of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and B.C.
With respect to other treaties, such as the numbered treaties and the pre-Confederation treaties, there's a whole slew of areas within the Canadian land mass that may not fall into the land claim type of definition.
If you look at the numbered treaties in particular, they aren't pursuant to land claim agreements at this point. What you would have in the Prairies are treaty land entitlement processes or other types of claims.
We feel that when it comes to rights that are enshrined in the numbered treaties in particular and other pre-Confederation treaties, those clauses or those promises should be protected, as well, and not just subsumed in the land claim agreement or in a modern type of context.
That relates to our earlier comments with respect to the definition of aboriginal fisheries, where there's exclusion of some commercial aspects and putting that into the commercial box. That may be problematic to some first nation communities.
Again, we feel if there's consultation and accommodation with respect to first nation interests, there may be a balanced approach. We would definitely prefer that, and we would recommend that consultation and accommodation take place in order to alleviate any potential problems that may exist in the future.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I think the department wouldn't disagree with that.
This change in Bill C-45 was made because feedback was received from some first nations groups and others that the definition in Bill C-38 would exclude some aboriginal fisheries, and the intent in the fisheries protection section of the act was to make sure that fisheries that involve fish that are fished, that are important to Canadians, be protected, and not to find a way to not protect some of those fisheries.
The advice was that by using the word “subsistence”, there would be some other fisheries.... The Nisga'a was one that was mentioned by the department official. Because they have a fishery that is commercial-like but doesn't have a commercial licence, it wasn't clear how a fishery like that would be caught by the terms “recreational”, “commercial”, and “aboriginal”. We were told that this broader term of “land claims agreement” would cover fisheries like that as well as arrangements that were made under treaty.
If you differ with that interpretation, perhaps you could say so, and if we have time—
9:30 a.m.
General Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
I mean, clearly we would like it to be as clear as possible. By indicating that they hoped they would fall into a definition....
We'll have to see if that's the case, but clearly if it's spelled out properly in the act it would provide more certainty to first nations communities.
There's also an issue with respect to the ongoing evolution of aboriginal fisheries as new technologies and those types of things come into play. Clearly we want those protected in the aboriginal fisheries as well.
There is an issue with respect to “sustenance” and what that is. Recent Federal Court of Appeal cases with respect to taxation of first nations fishers in Manitoba was released just a couple of weeks ago or last week. They state that there may be commercial activities, but they also may be integral and tied to a first nations community. Again, we want to ensure that those types of arrangements are captured in the act and contemplated, and also consultation and accommodation result in those activities as well.
We agree that clarity and certainty are preferred, and if the act can be changed to make things clearer, that would be our preference.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the committee on short notice. That will be my introduction.
First of all, I feel, whether correctly or incorrectly, that you have a different view of consultation than possibly the government has of consultation. I would like you to comment on that.
Also, it's been indicated that the recommendations might not be rolled out on January 1, but I'd like you to comment on what difference it makes when they're rolled out if you have no input into what is rolled out. That is the problem.
Mr. Taylor was talking about scientific information in order to put the criteria in place with the habitat protection, and looking at the loss of personnel in Prince Edward Island. I'd like him to indicate what effect he sees that having.
If I understood you correctly, Mr. Wuttke, you were talking about species that first nations fish. Were you indicating that some species might not be on the DFO list, or were you talking about underutilized species that might not be protected? That type of thing is what I'm interested in.
Could we start with you, Mr. Taylor?
9:35 a.m.
President, Atlantic Salmon Federation
Thank you.
I can give you my personal definition of “consultation”—
9:35 a.m.
President, Atlantic Salmon Federation
—and certainly what my staff and the volunteers whom I represent consider consultation.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
If I could add to it, Mr. Taylor, could you add your input to the committee with regard to, first of all, how important it is to have fisheries groups? I appreciate community groups and business organizations having a say, but when you're talking about change to the Fisheries Act, I would think that fisheries groups and organizations might be people who could provide some input into it, along with the scientists.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
President, Atlantic Salmon Federation
I would concur entirely.
Consultation is a lengthy discussion between at least two parties, with an opportunity to ask questions and to have questions answered. If you do not understand the answers or the implications of the answers, you work with each other, and at the end of the day, in our case, you walk away from a consultation understanding the implications of the amendments being proposed.
I realize and fully appreciate that senior DFO staff are under a very tight deadline in this. While I can respect that, and maybe have sympathy for that—
9:35 a.m.
President, Atlantic Salmon Federation
—it does not change the fact that substantive changes are being made to an absolutely critical fisheries protection bill that has implications across the country, has implications for all Canadians, has implications that are social, environmental, and commercial.
For the Atlantic Salmon Federation, being the main representative of wild Atlantic salmon on the east coast of Canada, having two very short meetings with senior staff, without the opportunity for discussion and have questions answered, to my mind is not consultation, and that would be shared by all of the people I represent.
Sorry.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Are you going to comment on the habitat protection and the cut staff?
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I'd also like to indicate to you that it's a man-made timeline, it's not from somewhere else. This is a decision made by government. You're talking to a committee that supposedly advises government.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
That's what I would hope and expect that you're here for, not just for the good of your health. You're here to advise government on how you think it should go forward.
Or have we just gone forward and that's it?
9:35 a.m.
President, Atlantic Salmon Federation
What scares me is that we appear to have gone forward, and the time is fast disappearing.
If anything, I'm here to the detriment of my health, not for the good of my health.
You made a very good point. DFO has said to us that by the January 1 deadline, everything may not be ready to be rolled out by then but they're going to be ready. That tells me that whatever is going to take place with regard to meetings, consultations, amendments, delivery mechanisms, and so on, will have been done, so even if it's not rolled out for six more months, what difference does it make? That is our deep concern.
You did mention, sir, the loss of habitat staff in Prince Edward Island. No, there would be no habitat staff on Prince Edward Island. The Charlottetown office will be closed. As far as the east coast of Canada, we're going to be down to only three offices, Moncton, Dartmouth, and St. John's, Newfoundland.
If I had appeared here and spoken to you two years ago about the situation in eastern Canada, I would have said at that time we did not have enough habitat staff. Habitat staff are being dramatically decreased, and delivery opportunity is going to be next to nil.
You asked specifically about Prince Edward Island. All summer long, all fall long, there have been serious problems in Prince Edward Island with respect to agricultural runoff. I do not know how that will be handled without staff in Prince Edward Island.
9:40 a.m.
General Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
I'll start off by talking about consultation, then I'll move on to your second question.
With respect to consultation, first nations and Canadians have a special relationship. We tend to view it as two societies coexisting in a land mass. That is consistent with the historic treaties and the modern treaties that are being developed, the modern self-government agreements.
The way we see consultation is that first nations themselves are rights holders. The land itself, the land mass, is based on our ancestors, and our ancestors have been buried there for thousands of years. When it comes to consultation, we would like the department to basically share information with us, give us a common period where we can actually look at the document, make recommendations, and propose changes. We would like for there be some joint process where first nation interests can be accommodated, especially with respect to habitat protection and environmental protection.
From there, hopefully changes will be made, and then, if not, we can look at possible other avenues of accommodation. But just keep in mind, too, that first nations themselves are scattered throughout Canada when it comes to the habitat. Most Canadians live close to the border. I think many first nation communities are agreeable to working with the department, the government, and other Canadians in habitat protection. They're ideally situated throughout the whole ecosystem across Canada, whereas other Canadians are not. I think that provides an excellent opportunity to look at the overall health of Canada as a biosphere.
With respect to your second question on first nation species, we are concerned. There have been some past practices where habitat has been destroyed and there have been remediation projects. What we found in those projects is that, rather than restocking all the fish that were lost in a particular habitat, the habitat of certain commercially viable or sports viable fisheries had been restored in other areas. If you look at walleye, salmon, and pickerel, all those highly commercial types of fish, the fish that those fish rely on, in terms of food and other protection of the habitat itself, have not really been restocked in new areas. Some of those fish, such as the eulachon, are utilized by first nation fishers as opposed to non-first nation fishermen. It's in those areas that we feel that there has to be some focus to ensure that first nation interests in use of all fish and fish habitat is protected, and protected not only for the current generations, but also for future generations, to ensure that the aboriginal treaty rights can be practiced by future generations.
So when it comes to listing certain species as well, fish stocks should be restored. We agree with that. Conservation of the fish is important. But secondly, we don't want conservation and other practices, such as the sports fisheries, to override first nation interests. Sports fishermen are given a lot of time to go out to do the sports fishing. It's economically viable for the provinces. They come in from the States, they rent hotels, they eat at restaurants, and that type of thing. So there's always been an interest to ensure that those interests are protected above first nation interests, and we want to ensure that first nation interests are accommodated throughout this whole process as well.
Hopefully I've answered that.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you.
We'll move to the five-minute round, and we'll start off with Ms. Crowder.