Fisheries Committee on May 28th, 2013

[Nathan Millar]

I would characterize the main threats to habitat as mining—mineral extraction, both hard rock and placer mining—hydro development, and to some degree linear development, so roadways.

Yukon government, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Council of Yukon First Nations agreed some years ago to develop a new system for managing placer mining in the Yukon, but in particular the impacts of placer mining on fish. Just to clarify, because I'm sure people are wondering what placer mining is, it's a kind of gold mining that doesn't use chemicals. It uses water and gravity to extract gold, usually from stream beds. It tends to be a little bit more small-scale than the giant mines or open-pit mines that you've probably seen pictures of, but tends to be working directly in or nearby fish habitat.

That system...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in place now for a number of years.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I just wanted to catch your last statement. Did that system, that cooperatively developed system, become finalized, and is it now in place for placer mining?

[Nathan Millar]

That's correct, yes. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has issued authorizations to permit placer mining activities in different watersheds. There is a set of rules and conditions that would apply to those operations.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Does the Yukon have any of its own environmental assessment procedures for mines and/or hydroelectric projects?

[Nathan Millar]

Yes, we certainly do. In most of Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies. In the Yukon, CEAA does not apply. We have a Yukon-specific act called YESAA, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. There's a very similar but different process that's very rigorous, which involves environmental assessment of all projects that have an impact on land and water in the Yukon.

So there's a whole regulatory system specific to Yukon that deals with environmental assessment.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Excellent. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

Go ahead, Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Millar, for taking the time to talk to us today.

I'm from British Columbia but have been to the Yukon a number of times. It's a great place. In fact, I was just there a couple of weeks ago.

The Fisheries Act of course now refers to commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. Each of those terms is defined in the act as well, after Bill C-38. In your report you talk about commercial, recreational, domestic, and subsistence fisheries. I just wonder if you could give us a brief clarification on what those terms refer to. I think domestic and subsistence are terms that are less familiar to us. Is the term FSC—food, social, and ceremonial—relevant at all in the Yukon?

[Nathan Millar]

Basically a subsistence fishery is our term for an aboriginal fishery. They are more or less interchangeable. But we distinguish between a domestic fishery, which is a licensed fishery, and a subsistence fishery, which is a fishery taking place under aboriginal treaty rights, so it's not a fishery that the Yukon government licenses. A domestic fishery, on the other hand, is typically done by non-aboriginal people for their own food fish needs. But it's a food fishery, which we distinguish from a recreational fishery.

I'm not a subject expert, but the way I understand the FSC—and maybe, Dan, you can clarify—is that, once the final agreements have been signed, they are constitutional level documents. They specify aboriginal rights to fish in Yukon. So all members of that first nation have their rights to fish enshrined in those final agreement documents. In most cases, those are different from FSC, which is cases where the final agreements would not apply. But basically those rights are enshrined in those final agreement documents that allow for food, social, and ceremonial purposes.

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

They have the right to fish under those final agreements. Do they have the right to sell those fish under the agreements?

[Dan Lindsey]

I can speak to that. The agreement basically gives a first nation the ability to trade amongst first nation members. They cannot sell that for commercial gain in a public market or separately for what would normally be considered trade amongst themselves for sharing. So they do recognize that and the agreements do recognize that. There is only actually one reference to it in the agreements, where we identify commercial fisheries. As an economic benefit they have the opportunity to receive 26% of the commercial fishing licences, once we had a transitional period. That was not part of the fish and wildlife chapter. It was part of the economic benefits chapter.

I think for the most part in the Yukon there is a fairly clear distinction between commercial and subsistence fishing. With the subsistence fishing, for the most part, we've never had a concern about sale. There's been a little bit of barter and trade amongst first nation folks but largely not a significant piece.

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

Okay. I have one more question, and then I think I will have run out of time.

You haven't painted a very rosy picture of commercial fishing in the Yukon. In fact your report talks about $65,000 of economic output as measured in 1986, and the report says it has actually diminished since then. It doesn't sound very robust at all.

You talk about the lakes where it takes place. It sounded as if there was some tension because there were not enough fish to go around and that kind of thing. Do you have a formal principle that recreational fishing has priority over commercial fishing? How do you manage the overlap? I guess that's the fundamental question.

[Dan Lindsey]

I'll speak to the general piece, and then if Nathan has any comments, he can certainly add to my response.

Part of it is that the productivity in northern lakes is not what you would see in southern jurisdictions. If you have been here, you know that the lakes are not all that productive, in comparison. We have very slow growth rates. The ratio of ice-free versus ice-covered time is significant. So we have lakes that aren't nearly what you are familiar with by way of productivity.

Also, speaking to your second question, I would think that, without its being written in stone.... First of all, the subsistence fishery has priority. That's clear. As for the recreational needs, or the interests of Yukoners in acquiring food or acquiring the opportunity to fish, implicitly a policy has been coming out through the boards and councils, but not written as a formal policy. If you were to analyze all the recommendations and all their input, I would think the outcome you would have would be that recreational fishing would be the second important piece, with commercial being third.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking the time today to answer our questions and enlighten us on some of the facts you face in the Yukon. Certainly we appreciate your offer, if the committee decides to travel, to help facilitate some of the arrangements. I'm sure our clerk will be in touch with you, when that decision is made.

Once again, on behalf of the committee, I want to say thank you very much for taking the time to meet with us today. We appreciate the information you provided to this committee.

Go ahead, Mr. Lindsey.

[Dan Lindsey]

Thank you. We look forward to your coming up here and spending a couple of days on the lakes and seeing for yourself what kind of experience you can have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

There being no further business, this committee now stands adjourned.