Fisheries Committee on Nov. 8th, 2012

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Toone, and I just have a very brief question.

I have a very quick comment first. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has a clause that talks about free, prior, and informed consent. What we've watched the government do consistently is move to calling something engagement, not consultation, because I think it's fairly clear that, from the Supreme Court decisions, they're not meeting their commitments under the Supreme Court decisions about what constitutes consultation.

Mr. Wuttke, I thank you for laying out more clearly what, in your view, would constitute consultation. I think we would all agree that hasn't happened either on this particular piece of legislation or on Bill C-38, or on the changes to the fishing regulations.

Have you had an opportunity to examine whether the parallel harvesting agreements on land claims—Tsawwassen is one of them, where the harvesting agreement wasn't incorporated into the land claims agreement, it was a parallel agreement—would be included in this definition?

[Stuart Wuttke]

I haven't looked at those. No, we haven't looked at those particular aspects. Again, this was very rushed. As far as we're concerned, we hoped we would have had more time. But again, that would be something that this committee could potentially ask the affected the first nations themselves to get their thoughts on that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I think that highlights your concerns, though, around how this definition could move forward. There are questions: whether the Inuit also are protected under this particular clause, because there are viable fisheries—food fisheries, ceremonial, and subsistence fisheries—there as well.

I'll leave it at that and turn it over to Mr. Toone.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your answers. Your exchanges have been very informative.

To get back to the question of consultation, I'd like to point out that I'm not sure that political MPs going off to their ridings to meet with municipal officials constitutes DFO consultations. I think that was the whole question at hand: whether the ministry had been consulting with you, rather than MPs.

As far as I know, apart from the Supreme Court decision especially as it pertains to first nations in Haida v. British Columbia and other decisions, the definition of consultation is fairly clear. Even in other situations, a consultation as far as I understand it is supposed to be an actual exchange of ideas with experts, not just having DFO make a conference call and give us the lowdown on what they think is the future of the Fisheries Act. I don't think we're meeting the definition of consultation in any way here.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you're here today to speak to Bill C-45, which we keep hearing is a fine-tuning of Bill C-38. Ultimately, what we're trying to do is have not just a predictable regulatory structure, but one that also accommodates.

I'd like your input on where you think we're going. Are we going toward a more predictable structure? Are we going toward one that accommodates the needs especially of first nations? Or are we going in the other direction?

Where is the combination of Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 leading, in your opinion?

[Stuart Wuttke]

I'll try to answer that.

We feel that the act itself definitely has some problems. It can definitely be improved in certain areas to provide more certainty in, as I mentioned, the definition of aboriginal fisheries and how it applies to some of the historic treaty provisions and promises. We want to ensure that the act itself can be amended so that it provides clarity on these points.

The impacts themselves are pretty great, especially when you look at what we have. We feel that if DFO had engaged first nations sooner and engaged us more effectively, there definitely would have been suggested changes that could have been accommodated.

In and of itself, the act is flawed in some areas. I know the intent is to modernize the fisheries and to improve the old, archaic Fisheries Act. With further engagement, it can be done more appropriately for first nation concerns and accommodate first nation interests. I believe there is an interest on the part of the federal government and also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do that, but within the current mechanisms it's just not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Taylor, do you have a quick comment on this?

[Bill Taylor]

I would say that the objectives of modernizing the act and improving clarity and predictability are all objectives that the Atlantic Salmon Federation would support. The fact of the matter is that we simply have too many questions on definitions and delivery. On the fundamental premise of the act in respect to habitat, we feel very strongly that the no net loss principle somehow has to be maintained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that Mr. Wuttke has to leave soon, so I'll put my first question to him.

In our testimony the other day, Mr. Stringer spoke, and he said, in response to a question from Mr. Toone: The other thing I would say is that aboriginal groups are an absolutely key partner with respect to the implementation of this act. The act says that we will be protecting commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. Where exactly there's an aboriginal fishery, we'll be needing to work with aboriginal groups on that, on a case-by-case basis.

He goes on to talk about some of those relationships. Especially in the inland, where they have 300 of these relationships, they're going to have to continue to do that.

Do you believe, on that statement that they're going to carry this out, that this would give you the kind of certainty that you were talking about before—the importance of that certainty to first nations?

[Stuart Wuttke]

It's a tough question to answer.

We've heard that from DFO for a while now, and there have obviously been a number of Supreme Court cases since 1980, since section 35 was introduced into the Constitution.

We're hopeful that further engagement does occur and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, like all of government, works in first nation communities to accommodate first nation interests, and also works on other projects such as economic development ventures and on how first nations can alleviate some of the poverty constraints they currently find themselves in. Clearly that's an interest of many first nation communities and the Assembly of First Nations.

On the case-by-case basis, again, you may have two communities living in the same treaty area, say Treaty No. 5, for instance. You may have DFO applying certain standards to one community and different standards to the other community even though they exist under the same treaty. There may be inequities in those relationships as far as licensing and other things are concerned.

There may be some positive aspects about that, but there also may be some problematic aspects of this case-by-case relationship. Again, we would encourage that the federal government work with first nation communities to provide greater certainty to all of first nation communities.

We agree that, based on ecosystems, there may be some differences in the fisheries, but again by and large the aboriginal and treaty rights are fairly consistent in broad areas and we would hate to see differences in DFO's treatment between certain communities and certain classes of fishers.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

That's helpful. Thank you very much.

[Stuart Wuttke]

On that, I do have to leave. I apologize.

My two colleagues are here.

Thank you.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Taylor, I'll engage you on this a little bit. The other day Mr. Stringer talked about Bill C-38, and Mr. Kamp referred to it before. It will take effect when the Governor in Council decides it will take effect. The January 1 deadline was one the department had kind of set for itself, which is obviously good, for government to set a target.

The three areas they were talking about were, one, information requirements for an authorization; two, the timelines; and three, aquatic invasive species. Those are the three very limited regulatory things they're actually doing right now.

He also stated:

With respect to the other regulations, there is a set that we would anticipate going forward with. They are not required,

—at least initially—but they would probably come later and would also be subject to public engagement.

So to your comment of June 1 as being another date, I think it's important to recognize that there is significant other consultation that will have to happen.

Just as a question on this, and on some of the testimony Mr. Stringer gave to the Senate committee, going back when I was younger in the seventies and eighties when I used to fish the Nashwaak River, the St. John River, and the Miramichi River, obviously there was quite a number of salmon and other species at that point in time. I've seen generally over the years that we might have a bumper year in some cases, as we did last year in the Miramichi—not so great this year—but we've had some good years. But generally in the other rivers—I use the Nashwaak as an example because there is not a dam there from that standpoint—we've seen these go down.

Mr. Stringer talked about the Fisheries Act and called for a regime to protect Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries; provide protection from serious harm; address managing threats to these fisheries from challenges to habitat, aquatic invasive species, and other threats; and provide enhanced tools for the compliance, and also the partnerships agreement.

I guess when you look at an act from 1868, it seems to me that hasn't worked very well for us and that some of these changes, in terms of focusing on the fish, would be better.

I'd just ask for your comment on that.

[Bill Taylor]

We would hope so and expect so. I would say that the Atlantic Salmon Federation certainly is supportive of a modernization of the act, and we would welcome greater clarity and understanding and predictability—all worthwhile goals and objectives.

As an example, when you spoke, actually very accurately, about the state of wild Atlantic salmon populations in the Nashwaak, Miramichi, and St. John rivers, as an example New Brunswick has over 100 scheduled Atlantic salmon rivers. Over half of them are closed to angling because there aren't enough fish in them.

Once, the St. John River—I'm not trying to date us here, but not in your lifetime, or even my lifetime—

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Or even Mr. MacAulay's lifetime.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bill Taylor]

—was one of the most productive Atlantic salmon rivers in the world. Dams destroyed that. There are three first nations communities on the St. John River that cannot fish for food, social, or ceremonial purposes because there aren't enough fish. The once lucrative recreational Atlantic salmon fishery in the St. John River has closed.

If we look to Nova Scotia, there are 120 Atlantic salmon rivers. Two-thirds of them are closed because there aren't enough fish. That means that there are no recreational fisheries but also no first nations fisheries on a lot of those rivers. How will the revisions in the act improve that?

We have rivers that have Atlantic salmon populations, but they're threatened with extinction or are protected under SARA. Will the act protect those fish? There's no commercial fishery. There's no aboriginal fishery. There's no recreational fishery. Where does the Nashwaak fall? Where does the Medway River in Nova Scotia fall? Those are legitimate concerns.

We're not saying that there should not be a modernization of the act at all. We're just saying please give us the time to truly consult, exchange information among the experts and among the scientific community, and figure out what the partnerships will look like.

I can only speak for the Atlantic Salmon Federation and all the people we represent. We've played an important role until now. We'd like to continue. We're ready, willing, and able. What will that role look like? Where will our volunteers fit? Where will our science community fit? Those are the questions we're asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Toone.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Me again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You again.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

All right.

Mr. Taylor, you mentioned earlier that you were having some difficulties getting some reports from DFO. Could you elaborate on that?

[Bill Taylor]

We were having some difficulties...?

I'm sorry, you'll have to....

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

No, I'm so sorry, it was Mr. Wuttke. I have it under the wrong heading.

[Bill Taylor]

I know I'm tired, but....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!