Fisheries Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Matthew King]

It's an element; it's one of the consequences of the new legislation. We wouldn't have had the explicit authority to do this in the previous legislation, but now we do. It's turned out to be a little bit of a whirlwind of activity.

It's a two-year pilot project, as you know. We've had a very good start to our first year. We reckon that in the 2013-14 part of the program we have now distributed about $3.6 million, but we've also agreed to another $2 million that won't be expended until next year, because some of them were two-year projects but grosso modo we're finding right now that nationally we're levering federal investments two dollars to one.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Excellent.

[Matthew King]

So for every dollar we put in, we're getting a dollar back; in British Columbia for every dollar we put in, we're getting $1.40 back. We have a total of 98 projects on the go right now, and I think it is actually a good example of—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

The beauty of it is, it's direct fisheries and aquatic ecosystem habitat improvement, so all the dollars are hitting the ground.

You said there were 98 proposals accepted in the first round. Were they distributed across the country?

[Matthew King]

I have a bit of a breakdown, if you find that interesting. In terms of accepted projects, we had 28 in British Columbia, 24 in the DFO central and arctic region, 19 in Quebec, 21 in the gulf, 6 in the Maritimes, and one in Newfoundland.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

About 18, though, right?

[Matthew King]

Yes, it would have been—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That's in the central arctic region?

[Matthew King]

The central Arctic would be the entire—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Oh, I see. I'm not familiar with it.

So what types of projects were funded under the RFCPP?

[Matthew King]

We've had a very wide variety.

Kevin, do you want to provide some examples for us?

[Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Sure.

It really is on-the-ground work. We talk about partnerships. It really is a down payment on those partnerships. The whole idea of section 4 of the Fisheries Act amendments is to make sure.... The reality is, there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in these watershed groups who are passionate about fisheries' protection, who are working on removing barriers to fisheries, who are cleaning debris, who are fixing culverts, who are doing those types of projects, and our job is to align our work with their work. So those are the types of projects.

We really thought it through in terms of what types of projects. The average project is about $100,000. We wanted to go fairly small with the projects so that we have as much partnership as possible. We had a maximum of $250,000, so it really is local watershed, conservation, angling groups—partnering with them, with their priorities in the communities. As the deputy says, it's also stacking roles to enhance those partnerships with others.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

For a pilot project I think it has been remarkably successful, and I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the department on its ability to handle a program that was rolled out extremely quickly. If you could convey my congratulations to the staff who were directly involved, they did a marvellous job.

In terms of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act, how do the habitat protection provisions of the new Fisheries Act compare with the habitat protection provisions of the previous act?

[Kevin Stringer]

There was section 35 in the previous version of the act, which basically said that you can't harmfully alter, disrupt, or destroy fish habitat with any project. What it now says is that you can't cause serious harm to fish “that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery”.

Then “serious harm” is defined, and “serious harm” is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. So habitat remains protected.

The bar is a little different from “harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction” to “permanent alteration” or “destruction”, but it's also linked to ongoing productivity of the fishery. Section 6 basically says that here are the factors the minister must take into account. The idea is that with respect to any project, the impact of the ongoing productivity of the fishery on the habitat is where we will determine whether it's permanent alteration or destruction.

Habitat continues to be in the act. Habitat continues to be protected. There are other elements, such as aquatic invasive species and others that we're now protecting as well that we weren't before, but habitat is still in there.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I strongly support the emphasis on fish production. Some people didn't like our changes to the Fisheries Act, but fancy that, we have a Fisheries Act that's actually about fish, which I find to be really good.

Regarding standards, I understand that standard settings are allowed now. I gather that standards were not enabled under the old act. For example, let's say a forestry development was going in and there are a number of spawning streams. Can you now set standards for the stream crossings so that they are constructed in a manner to allow fish to pass under the road?

[Matthew King]

Maybe I can start that off, and, Kevin, you can fill in some details as we go, because that's an interesting question.

We actually started to look at this program back in 2002-03, when we found, as a department, we were doing 12,000 to 12,500 environmental assessments a year. Obviously that wasn't sustainable; we didn't have the people to do that.

We started out using an instrument called operational statements. Now, there was no reference to operational statements in the legislation at the time, but we piloted them and wanted to see what the impact would be. We used them for things like culverts. We certainly used them for irrigation of drainage ditches on farms. We used them for anything that was really repeatable and predictable. We simply posted the requirements the department needed to help an individual—and usually they were individuals—to either avoid or mitigate impacts on fish habitat.

That sort of evolved over time. What you're seeing in the new legislation, the use of standards, which won't be prescribed in regulations, really, in my view, amounts to the next step. Quite frankly, we will see the potential in the years to come for the Minister of Fisheries to actually, through regulation, establish standards for things like water flow and that sort of thing. Here we would be publishing what we think are the required steps to ensure that there is no impact, or minimal impact, on fisheries habitat. So that is a new element to the act.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Would it be fair to say that this new Fisheries Act protects certain fish in certain areas where there are people? Would that be a fair assessment?

First of all, I should have welcomed you here. I slipped here. We're so pleased...but I'm so used to seeing the fisheries crew that you're kind of like family—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

A troublesome family.

[Matthew King]

I have read statements recently that have made an effort to segment fisheries, to say that this type of fishery will be protected and that type of fishery won't. I have to say that sometimes I find it difficult to follow the argument.

The act for the first time actually has pretty clear definitions of what constitutes a commercial, a recreational, or an aboriginal fishery. The act also says that fisheries that support the three fisheries—the CRA fisheries, if I can use that term—also come under the protection of the act, as does the habitat that supports fisheries.

It's almost all the fish.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

The “almost” part is the concern.

[Matthew King]

We put out a policy statement a month to two months ago—I'm sorry I don't have the exact date in front of me—where we actually went further and began to clarify and define more sharply what that would mean. In the policy statement, I believe on page 8, we've said that any fishery that is regulated by the federal government or the provincial government is now included. We've also said that fisheries that are relied upon by aboriginal peoples for food, ceremonial, and social purposes are also included. The reality is that very few fisheries indeed will fall outside the act.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

There have been a lot of cuts in DFO over the last couple of years. I wonder if you could give the committee just a bit of a rundown on what cuts have taken place, what cuts we can expect to see, and what effect they will have over the next couple of years.

Also, in that explanation, could you refer to the ELA scientists at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg who were recently declared surplus? What were their positions? Will they be let go? Were they not needed in the first place?