Bill C-68 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

This enactment amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;
(b) add a purpose clause and considerations for decision-making under that Act;
(c) empower the Minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes;
(d) provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, including in ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to the modernization of the regulatory framework such as authorization of projects, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project and establishment of a public registry;
(e) empower the Governor in Council to make new regulations, including regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks and importation of fish;
(f) empower the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity;
(g) empower the Minister to make fisheries management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing for a period of 45 days to address a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish;
(h) prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care; and
(i) update and strengthen enforcement powers, as well as establish an alternative measures agreements regime; and
(j) provide for the implementation of various measures relating to the maintenance or rebuilding of fish stocks.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, we are, by our count, I think, on meeting three on C-68, and we have yet to see the complete witness list. We're wondering if it is possible to give that out to the parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, meeting number 98. Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, April 16, 2018, we are doing a review of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Before we get to our witnesses, I would just like to tell committee members that we have to do a little bit of committee business to approve budgets for the fall, and I'm wondering if we can take five minutes off of each hour and do 10 minutes at the end of this session.

Do I have consent?

The Environment

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question in relation to the Cowichan Lake weir. I would also like to state that in addition to asking this question of the minister, the member has brought up this issue with me as well.

The Cowichan River is a British Columbia heritage river with significant cultural and historical importance, and it supports significant populations of salmon, as was mentioned by the member opposite. As an islander, I spent significant time during my childhood camping and exploring areas around Cowichan Lake and Cowichan River.

Healthy fish and fish habitat play a critical role in the Canadian economy and are a strong measure of our environmental health. That is why it is so important that we safeguard the health of our fish as well as the habitat in which they live, feed, reproduce, and migrate.

The continued well-being of Pacific salmon and their habitats is a high priority for the residents of Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Cowichan Tribes, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, and, frankly, all British Columbians and all Canadians. Our government is deeply committed to ensuring that these iconic species are protected for future generations.

As a result of climate change and other factors, we know that inflows from Cowichan Lake have been reduced. We also understand that the weir constructed in 1957 at the outflow of the lake is no longer adequate to ensure sufficient storage in drought conditions, which have been occurring more frequently in the past 20 years.

However, the problem at the Cowichan Lake weir is complex, and a long-term solution needs appropriate planning and consultation. It will require the involvement of a number of partners and significant funding to be implemented. That is why Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been working with the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Cowichan Tribes, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, other federal departments, the Province of British Columbia, and industry to discuss a proposal to increase the height to the weir and to examine potential funding mechanisms. We are committed to this ongoing dialogue and to finding a long-term solution to resolve the issues of the Cowichan watershed.

Departmental officials are engaged in the Cowichan water use planning process, which works with all local stakeholders to address long-term water needs for fish and local residents. However, while the work to consider the Cowichan Lake weir proposal is under way, this government is also taking action and is concurrently making investments in habitat restoration and salmon stock assessment projects on the Cowichan River.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada currently has two active projects on the Cowichan system that will deliver mainstem riparian rehabilitation projects on the lower Cowichan River over a three-year period and is working with resource professionals, youth, volunteers, private landowners, and the community at large to restore lake and river shoreline properties.

The oceans protection plan is a historic $1.5 billion investment that will make our oceans safer, healthier, and cleaner for generations to come, and it includes support for the restoration of the Pacific salmon habitat. As salmon are a migratory species, the benefits from our government's investments in coastal restoration projects will therefore extend beyond the boundaries of the river system itself into the Georgia Strait ecosystem and also benefit species such as the endangered southern resident killer whales, which rely on salmon as their primary food source.

In addition, amendments to the Fisheries Act that we have introduced in Bill C-68 are intended to incorporate modern safeguards and restore protections lost as a result of changes that were made to the act by the previous government. These amendments were mentioned by the member opposite, who is also supportive. These changes will provide additional protections to fish and fish habitat across Canada, including habitat in the very important Cowichan River.

I can assure the member that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to the ongoing conservation and protection of Cowichan River salmon and their habitat. We continue to invest in restoration projects that will benefit chinook salmon within the system, and we will continue to work with our partners to evaluate potential solutions and funding options for work at the Cowichan Lake weir.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on December 6, 2017, I rose in the House during question period to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the Liberals' promise to protect communities from climate change with investments in green infrastructure. I specifically alluded to the state of the Cowichan River in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I wanted the minister to specifically commit to making sure that federal funds were there to raise a critical piece of infrastructure, the Cowichan weir.

I want to back up a bit and explain what is going on. Every summer, around the end of August and into September, the Cowichan River gets down to critically low flow rates because of the effects of climate change. We are not having the lake retain as much water. The snow pack is lowering, and as a result, we are dealing with flow rates that can sometimes go as low as four cubic metres per second.

This is an iconic river. It is a heritage river, and when that river is flowing at only four cubic metres per second, we can barely see the water move. It looks like a still and placid lake. What that does is that the temperature starts rising. We start losing access to tributaries, and it poses a very real threat to fish and fish habitat.

I also want to acknowledge the important work that is being done in the Cowichan Valley, both through Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley Regional District. They have come together to form the Cowichan Watershed Board. We also have a number of stakeholders that have come together to form the Cowichan Stewardship Roundtable, including Catalyst Paper, which owns the weir. All of these organizations have come together in a 100% consensus and have agreed that the solution to the long-term problem of the Cowichan River is to build a new weir so we can hold back more water in the lake. By holding back more lake supply water, we will be more successful at controlling the flow rate to make sure that an adequate flow of water is running down that river in the dry summer months so that fish and fish habitat can be saved.

During the minister's response to my question, he acknowledged that the government is proceeding with Bill C-68. We support that legislation, and we are glad to see that some of those changes from the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act are being repealed. However, one of the criticisms we had of Bill C-68 during second reading, before we sent it to committee for further study, was that in the definition of fish habitat, there was not any explicit legal protection for environmental flows, which really means the amount and type of water that is needed for fish and aquatic ecosystems to flourish. This is a big oversight, because by controlling flow rates and making sure they are adequate, they actually work.

I will give the example of the Jordan River, also in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. The Jordan River has suffered from a copper mine and from B.C. Hydro dams. It has had a lot of work done to it over the years. They found recently, in 2008, when they increased the flow rates in the Jordan River, that, surprise, fish and fish habitat started returning and becoming a lot more healthy.

I want to specifically ask the parliamentary secretary if he will honour the Liberal promise to build this green infrastructure. Will he commit the necessary federal funds to ensure that the Lake Cowichan weir can be raised?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm very grateful for that. Thank you to the government side.

Margot, it's Elizabeth May here, your MP. I want to be very concise because this time has been given to me.

The mandate around what Dominic LeBlanc is doing is under the rubric of restoring lost protections. I don't want to take us out of Bill C-68 too far, but we know that we lost those protections in Bill C-38, which also took out one of the critical triggers that I think came to mind when you were speaking of how you look at small project, what you look at, the incremental, and whether we can look at the cumulative.

I don't know if you want to speculate about this, but if the committee studying Bill C-69, the impact assessment piece, were to restore the trigger that used to be there in section 35, would that address concerns that you're trying to amend through Bill C-68 or not?

Did that question make sense?

[Dan Gibson, Senior Environment Specialist, Ontario Power Generation Inc.]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Ontario Power Generation appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today at the standing committee.

OPG, Ontario's largest clean-energy generator, is focused on safe, reliable and sustainable electricity generation. The company's electricity generation portfolio has an in-service capacity of over 17,000 megawatts. We operate two nuclear power generating stations, two biomass-fuelled thermal generating stations, one oil-and-gas thermal station, 66 hydroelectric generating stations, and one wind-power turbine. As of 2018, I'm proud to say, our power generation is more than 99% free of smog and carbon emissions and maintains a critical role in Canada's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

OPG has also long been involved in fisheries management in our province, including more recently our work on American eel, lake sturgeon, and Atlantic salmon restoration and recovery efforts across the province, and also including proudly working with our first nations partners on a number of these initiatives.

OPG has also been very actively involved in all aspects of this federal review and supports the delegations—both written and before this committee—coming forward from the Ontario Waterpower Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Canadian Hydropower Association, and the Canadian Electricity Association.

Like many other proponents commenting on Bill C-68, permitting certainty and regulatory clarity are of paramount importance to our organization. While OPG applauds the government's efforts to implement modern safeguards in the act, we believe that additional amendments are required to properly balance the environmental protections the government seeks to attain with the interest of the end-use consumers and customers, and to maintain Canada's leadership role in low-carbon electricity generation, both domestically and through exports.

Of interest to OPG are the following recommendations to improve the act. I'll start with no order of preference here, but will simply be stating them as we go. We'll start with the purpose statement.

On the stated definition of “fish habitat” in subclause 1(5), the “conservation and protection of fish” in proposed paragraph 2.1(b), and the prohibitions listed in proposed sections 34.4 and 35, OPG acknowledges the government's stated desire to “restore lost protections” in order to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat. It is vitally important, however, for consistency of application, that all of these sections align with the higher-order objective of the purpose statement, which is stated in proposed paragraph 2.1(a) and that is for “the proper management and control of fisheries”.

As currently written, the purpose statement seems to establish two distinct clauses: one being the management of fisheries as a resource, while the other, along with the prohibitions in proposed sections 34.4 and 35, seem to focus on and pertain down to conservation and protection of each individual fish.

OPG has concerns with this interpretation and application of the prohibitions themselves. While the purpose statement focuses on fisheries as a resource, which we support, the prohibitions seem to focus, again, on individual fish. OPG recommends that this uncertainty can be remedied in the purpose statement with a simple amendment, that is, “the proper management and control of fisheries through the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution” would clarify this for our organizations.

Secondly, on the specific prohibitions and exceptions—specifically, proposed sections 34.4. and 35—they also seem at times, when you look downstream at the application of the act, in slight contradiction to the first purpose statement, which is to manage the fisheries as a resource. The proposed prohibition under proposed section 34.4, for instance, suggests that any incidental death of fish, potentially a single fish, could be construed as a contravention of the act without a permit or an authorization. This is a critical distinction for large power-generating companies.

The prohibition focusing on individual fish, as opposed to fisheries, is concerning to generation proponents across the country. The government could further address this concern by amending proposed subsection 34.2(1) to include the establishment of a code of practice which would allow some incidental harm to fish while still maintaining the act's stated purpose, which is the “proper management and control of fisheries”.

Similarly, proposed section 35 is reintroducing the prohibition of HADD, as we've already heard mentioned, that being fish habitat or “water frequented by fish”, and we would recommend that a reasonable scope come to this application. For example, exemptions, including intake canals, penstocks, and things of that nature, or ancillary structures next to power generating facilities that were built for the purpose of facility operation and not intended to be frequented by fish, but sometimes are, should be considered. Such exemptions should be considered.

We'll move on to proposed new sections 2.5 and 34.1. These state factors to be considered by the minister.

We believe there could be greater alignment of these two provisions with the proposed Impact Assessment Act. Specifically, proposed sections 2.5 and 34.1 list the factors that the minister “may” or “shall” consider when making decisions under the act.

OPG, along with our industry colleagues, believes there is a need to align these sections in the Fisheries Act with the proposed IAA specifically wherever the public interest is considered. Under the impact assessment, the public interest is considered, and this is left out of these provisions under the proposed Fisheries Act.

When a project designated under the Fisheries Act has already gone through an impact assessment and has obtained a positive decision, the impact assessment decision statement should inform and streamline the permitting and authorization process under the Fisheries Act. This could be made explicit in a decision statement issued under the impact assessment articulating the expected economic outcomes of the project, including their relevance to the public interest.

I'll move on to inter-jurisdictional collaboration, a theme that we've identified across our organizations. Inter-jurisdictional regulatory regimes are not new to us; they are governing powers that govern us. They are very complex and often include numerous stakeholder and indigenous interests. Navigating these regulatory frameworks is a critical requirement for the safe and reliable operation of power generating facilities. That's from the federal to provincial to municipal jurisdictions.

To this end, and specific to water management, OPG strongly believes that wherever equivalent or existing provincial water management regimes exist, proposed section 34.3 of the act, whereby the minister has the ability to mandate flow around obstructions, only serves to add to the complexity and uncertainty of these inter-jurisdictional controls.

In the case of OPG specifically, our provincial hydroelectric power plants are already governed by numerous water management agencies and regulatory policies, including but not limited to provincial water management plans, Parks Canada on the Trent-Severn Waterway, the International Joint Commission on our boundary waters, and federal water control boards such as Lake of the Woods Control Board.

Further, the Ontario Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in Ontario and the Water Resources Act regulate water power facilities through our province and include in their provisions the management, perpetuation, and use of the fish, wildlife, and other natural resources dependent on lake and river ecosystems. Suffice it to say, we have a lot of governance in this issue, and proposed new section 34.3 presents some concerns to us.

It is for these reasons OPG recommends that proposed new section 34.3 of the act should only be applicable in cases in which equivalent provincial or jurisdictional powers do not already exist.

If, however, the government intends to maintain these provisions, OPG insists that a vital amendment is required to the act, that being that prior to making an order under proposed section 34.3 for the management and control of an obstruction, the minister be required to consult with any provincial or federal authority also exercising, in this area of water management, powers that may overlap, may be in conflict, or may be inconsistent with the terms of an order to be issued by the minister.

Finally, OPG has long advocated for and welcomes the provisions in the act for a habitat banking system that advances the effective and efficient management of Canadian fisheries' resources. We also welcome the flexibility afforded the governor in council under the proposed legislation for designing this scheme.

On this point, however, OPG would also recommend adding flexibility to widen the potential creation and use of credits by project proponents and third party groups in a manner that advances both fish habitat conservation objectives and economic objectives. Improved clarification regarding the calculation and eligibility of offsets should be a focus, moving forward. We encourage the government to maintain a flexible, modern approach when working with proponents on the applicability of a habitat banking and offset system.

Secondly, and consistent with such other credit and debit systems as our cap and trade emissions system in Ontario, there should be a capacity of the governor in council to regulate not only the creation, allocation, and management of credits, but also their exchange in trade.

As mentioned, OPG has worked extensively with our parent organizations, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Canadian Hydro Power Association, and the OWA in preparing these respective submissions.

I can safely say that the electrical sector is unified in our position that Bill C-68 requires amendments to best serve all parties—

[Churence Rogers, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for Duncan and Tasha.

First let me say that it's nice to hear from you today, Duncan, talking about the financial challenges of acquiring licences or doing the things you need to do to stay in a fishery.

To start a fishery at your age, 22 years old, and to try to do the things you're doing is admirable. I commend you for taking on that kind of job in your life, even though you have family support, no doubt. That's great.

And Tasha, thank you for some of your comments.

I'm trying to get to an understanding of the Pacific fishery. This is new to me as well, as I haven't heard a lot of information about the fishery on the west coast. I know a fair bit about the east coast, but not the west; I'll readily admit that.

Does Bill C-68, from your perspective, enable a potential future transition from the current commercial fisheries' licensing policy in British Columbia to a new regime that would better support independent fishers? If not, what amendments do you think are required?

Tasha, I know you alluded to a couple, but I'd like to hear comments from either one of you or both.

[Tasha Sutcliffe, Vice-President, Programs, Ecotrust Canada]

Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me here today.

My name is Tasha Sutcliffe. I'm the Vice-President of Ecotrust Canada. I also grew up in a fishing family. I spent my first birthday on a salmon troller, and I have spent my working life in fisheries and with the people and communities reliant on them.

Twenty-four years ago Ecotrust Canada came together, powered by the vision of people and nature thriving together. We believe that Canada's rural and remote communities can create vibrant and prosperous livelihoods and greater well-being through the use, stewardship, and co-management of local natural resources.

Much of our work has been focused on fisheries in rural communities on the Pacific coast, where we have worked to co-create sustainable fisheries solutions, such as licence banks, traceability, small fishing loan funds, and first nations-led monitoring.

Today I'm here to speak in favour of Bill C-68 as legislation that stands to improve the Fisheries Act, and to affirm that fisheries and fish harvesters must have the same opportunities on all coasts.

First, I have some general comments on the bill.

At Ecotrust Canada we applaud the recognition of indigenous traditional knowledge for consideration in decision-making, the new ability of indigenous governing bodies to enter into an agreement with the minister, and the commitment to consider any adverse effects that a decision by the minister may have on the rights of indigenous peoples. We also applaud that traditional knowledge, in a more general sense, can include the knowledge of harvesters who have been working the coast for generations.

We are heartened by the new definitions of “fish habitat” and of “fishery”, which return protective measures to all fish and their habitat, not just those that are of commercial interest. This will help maintain the health of the ecosystem and, in turn, the many tangible and intangible benefits a healthy ecosystem provides.

Additionally, Bill C-68 introduces important new considerations for decision-making by the minister, all of which are important to viable fisheries, ecosystems, and coastal communities, and all of which are inextricably linked.

On the addition of social, cultural, and economic considerations, we emphatically endorse the inclusion of social, economic, and cultural factors for consideration by the minister in the management of fisheries, and our hope is that this will lead to greater parity between the Atlantic and Pacific regions. Our experience tells us that these considerations in the management of fisheries in coastal B.C. are necessary to help rebuild sustainable economies, local jobs, and thriving coastal communities that will help current and future generations of harvesters on the west coast.

To protect access for fish harvesters and communities, we recommend that the language in the bill not limit such considerations to “inshore fisheries” only. Though inclusion of this term is applicable in Atlantic Canada, we must ensure that the language does not exclude fish harvesters in the Arctic or the Pacific. For instance, it will be necessary to consult independent fish harvesters in the Pacific region to determine appropriate terminology and parallel policy if this is a prerequisite to the inclusion of social, economic, and cultural considerations in the management of the fishery.

On the independence of fish harvesters, the openly transferable, unregulated, and non-transparent market for licences and quota in B.C. has invited speculative investors and corporate consolidation of licences and quota, including by offshore interests. This has seriously impeded the independence and viability of our skippers and crew, as you have heard from others.

We applaud the insertion, in subsection 43(1), of a new scope of regulation under the Fisheries Act to address circumstances that would tie the licence to fish with a requirement to personally carry out any activity authorized by the licence. This, combined with a new ability to make regulations that would prohibit the transfer of licences except under prescribed conditions, can strengthen owner-operator and fleet separation policies, preserving the independence of those with fishing licences and enabling them to enjoy the full economic benefits from their labour.

The key term needing clarity to ensure that this clause would achieve its intended benefit is “licence holders”. We assume here that this is meant to refer to fish harvesters. This, however, is not a given, especially in B.C., where licence-holders are increasingly not fish harvesters. We recommend that this term be replaced with “fish harvesters”. Furthermore, as these clauses refer to where these restrictions already exist, this emphasizes the need to review current policy in the Pacific region and to understand how policy reform can occur on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

On the need for a stronger and more inclusive future for B.C.'s future, at Ecotrust we have observed, through our research and our close ties to coastal communities and fish harvesters, that unrestricted transferable quotas and licences have not worked for them. We have seen increasing and untenable debt loads, an aging industry, and a dramatic loss of jobs and incomes. Recent analysis of Statistics Canada tax filer data reveals that in 2015 the average fishing income for B.C. fish harvesters was $19,100, which is less than half the average fishing income earned by Atlantic Canada's fish harvesters of $42,795.

Over the period of 2000 to 2015, average income from fishing employment in B.C. dropped 28% in constant dollars, while the Atlantic provinces combined saw an increase of 45% after inflation in fishing incomes. It might be suggested that this drop in income for B.C. must be due to a collapse of the fishery or an equivalent loss in landed value. However, B.C. landings did not decline over that period. In fact, they slightly increased. They did lose 25% in market value, but the loss in total employment income for the industry was over 40%. There was also an 18% decline in that period in fish harvester jobs, which is nothing compared to the drop that we've seen over a longer period of time. Clearly, by the numbers and facts, the objective to increase incomes and improve enterprise viability through ITQs and fleet rationalization is not being achieved.

We know that sustainable small-scale fisheries can provide multiple benefits to their communities. Fish harvesters are small businesses. They run operations, employ crew, buy local supplies, and give back to community, ensuring that their family members, community members, and country members have healthy and high-quality foods, and they risk their lives to do so. There are many layers of value, from the landed value all the way through to a host of impactful, intangible values such as intergenerational knowledge transfer, gift and trade of food, and local stewardship.

These are all compromised under the current policy framework in the Pacific. In B.C., fish harvesters are struggling, as landed value is increasingly going to the non-fishing licence owner rather than active harvesters. Wholesale value and local employment are lost as processing leaves adjacent communities, and the less tangible benefits of the fishery that have formed the fabric of the coast for generations, and for first nations since time immemorial, are being eroded.

As you've heard already from others, change is needed. We need to transition respectfully and responsibly to an industry that young people can get into and thrive in for generations to come. In February of this year, we convened, along with our partners, a large and diverse gathering of food harvesters, organizations, and community groups. Among the over 120 participants were young and old fishermen, coastal community mayors, first nations leaders, academics, and environmental organizations. Despite the diverse perspectives and interests in the room, the gathering came to agreement on the need for fisheries policy reform in the Pacific region, and drafted the following consensus request:

That the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, perform an independent review of BC commercial fisheries licensing policy, built on a transparent & inclusive process, to:

a) Ensure fisheries licensing policy in the Pacific region supports independent fish harvesters, First Nations, and the revival of rural fishing communities, and

b) Determine how “social, economic, and cultural” objectives are to be achieved in Pacific region fisheries.

It is our hope that this committee will support and actively engage in such a review.

The gathering also came to agreement on a list of principles for policy reform that can easily be translated into a vision for the future of Pacific coast fisheries. These can be found in the proceedings report I have provided to the committee clerk, and I hope you'll read these.

I want to express that although the language of the bill is permissive for B.C. to push for change, there's a need for leadership by government to explore options, help bring people together, and develop consensus across the industry on ways to address these challenges and move forward.

In conclusion, we believe that Bill C-68 represents a unique and powerful opportunity to achieve positive change for first nations, active fish harvesters, and fishing communities in British Columbia. To enable this, we hope you will consider these simple language changes that can create opportunities for better implementation. We urge you to remember the voices of the young B.C. harvesters you've heard—Chelsey, Cailyn, James, and Duncan—as they represent a positive future for our fisheries.

Finally, we will continue to offer our expertise, research, and analysis in any way we can to support our community partners and the government in working hard on the common goal of creating a fair, prosperous and sustainable Canadian fishery from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here before you today.

[The Chair, Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 97 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are dealing with Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

Before we get started I would like to welcome today, from Burnaby South, Kennedy Stewart.

Mr. Stewart, welcome.

Elizabeth May, from Saanich—Gulf Islands, thank you for joining us this morning.

And we have Colin Fraser, from West Nova, so we have a whole bunch of new people here today.

We're going to get right into our testimony. We have, from Save Our BC Fisheries, Duncan Cameron, and also from Ecotrust Canada, Tasha Sutcliffe, for the first hour of testimony.

We're going to start with Mr. Cameron, for 10 minutes please, with his opening statement.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Amos and I both sit on the indigenous committee as well, and right now we're studying Bill C-262 around UNDRIP—the implementation of UNDRIP and the framework around it. Of course, FPIC is a constant point of discussion around that. There seem to be three definitions of free, prior, and informed consent: good faith, without necessarily obtaining it; a type of process, a consensus-oriented process that is sometimes referred to as collaborative consent; or a veto.

I know Mr. Gustafson mentioned earlier that they had made a submission around Bill C-68, for example, and within Bill C-68 they actually have quite an extensive overview of recognizing indigenous rights without actually spelling out UNDRIP itself.

What is your view of FPIC, and what is your view of C-68 in how they've defined indigenous rights and consultation?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chair, I'd like to start off by thanking our witnesses. I thought your testimony was very impressive. I loved all three of your stories. I thank you for your enthusiasm, your passion, your knowledge, and your experience. Having that come to this table and to this committee is really important when we're talking about Bill C-68, which is probably the strongest piece of legislation to protect the fishery and ensure that it succeeds into the future.

Mr. Lawson, you painted a picture for us. You talked about foreign entities. You used the term “serfs upon the sea”, which is pretty strong. You talked about the common resource and concentrating wealth to a few. You talked about the settlers fleet, price-fixing, owner-operators, and then your main points about control over your own destiny and encouraging others in coastal communities and nations like yours to actually engage in the fishery.

All three of you have painted very strong pictures of the work you're doing and the work we need to do on this committee to ensure that you can keep doing what you do. The future, we hope, will look strong.

Getting into the specifics, earlier we had the minister at a separate committee meeting. He welcomed recommendations on bringing owner-operator policy to the west coast. He legitimately is open to that. He is also legitimately struggling to figure out how we do that. It's on the east coast. The policy is strong there. Fishers want it on the east coast, and they're protecting it. On the west coast, we have an ITQ system, so it's slightly different and very hard to change.

Ms. Ellis, you talked about two specific recommendations. On that note, I haven't seen your submission yet, but if any of the three of you have recommendations, I would encourage you to supply those recommendations in writing to the committee, because that would be extremely helpful. When we go to look at amending Bill C-68, we specifically look at those written submissions, and they are really helpful, especially coming from folks like you who are on the front line.

As I was saying, Ms. Ellis, you've given two specific ones. The first was about the knowledge of fishers, and I agree with Mr. Hardie's point that the act is now going to include first nation traditional knowledge and the knowledge of fishers and others, which is great. Input is important, but I would say more important is actually listening to that input and then enacting it in law. You need to be diligent about following up with the government to ensure that they listen to input.

The same applies to this committee. We can hear all the testimony we like, but if we don't make recommendations to the government, it's not going to change anything. I just wanted to emphasize that you need to continue to be diligent about following up and doing what you're doing, which is already great.

Getting into owner-operator and how we support active fish harvesters, you painted a picture of transferring power to investors who are essentially slipper skippers. We hear them being called slipper skippers—armchair skippers, right? They're the ones who are investing in licences while you actually go out there and fish, but they take a big chunk of your paycheque, essentially. There's a role for investors, absolutely, but how do we make it so there's also a larger role for fish harvesters? That's what the minister is asking you to be specific about, given our system and our context on the west coast, which is very heavily ITQ, individual transferable quota.

In the remaining time I have, I'm wondering if any or all three of you would like to elaborate on that.

[Chelsey Ellis, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, and honourable members, first of all, I would like to thank you very much for allowing us the time to speak. I really appreciate this opportunity.

My name is Chelsey Ellis, and I'm a third-generation fisherwoman from a small fishing village in Prince Edward Island. I spent my early years on the water fishing lobster and scallops with my family. I then graduated with a biology degree that was heavily concentrated in marine science. Upon graduating, I took a position in the U.S. working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a fisheries observer. I then moved on to a position with the P.E.I. provincial government as an oyster biologist, and I was working on the side as a seafood traceability coordinator in Atlantic Canada.

I have been living on the west coast in small fishing towns in B.C. for the past six years as a seafood traceability coordinator, a fisheries observer, a monitoring program coordinator, and also as a commercial fisher. I have worked in 11 different fisheries as a biologist and commercial fisher on two coasts in both Canada and the U.S. I'm currently working towards my 150 ton master ticket, and I'm a member of the BC Young Fishermen's Network.

I'm here today to offer my unique experience to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, specifically the two pieces that I feel are missing. One, in decision-making, the preservation or promotion of the independence of active fish harvesters needs to be taken into account in all of Canada's fisheries. Two, the knowledge of commercial fish harvesters needs to be added as a consideration for decision-making. This is crucial to maximizing the social, economic, and cultural benefits of all of our fisheries.

Commercial fishing is the backbone of my community on Prince Edward Island. The provisions in place on the east coast protect and promote the independent owner-operator. This provides a meaningful and important livelihood that supports people in place, allowing young people the opportunity to stay in their communities and follow their families' traditions if they choose to do so.

I found this to be in stark contrast to the west coast, where provisions in place do not support and protect independent owner-operators. Companies, shareholders, and foreign entities have been enabled to buy and lease licences and quota. This has resulted in licences and quota being transferred out of the hands of fishermen and communities, creating extremely high capital costs, which have resulted in huge barriers to entry for the younger generation.

Through my experience as a biologist and a commercial fisher on both coasts, I've seen the impact that this discrepancy has created. Young people are not able to see themselves gaining access to or making decent wages in the fisheries on the west coast. The high cost to lease licences and quota has transferred most of the profits from fishing out of the hands of those who are doing the long hours and hard work to those who simply have the deep pockets to make the costly investment.

It doesn't have to be that way. This government can preserve and promote the independence of active fish harvesters across all fisheries in Canada. If steps were taken in the long-term direction of preserving or promoting the independence of active fish harvesters on the west coast, it would create great benefits to sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities in the exact same way that it would on the east coast.

Through my experience, I've seen that having an intergenerational link within the industry is a huge component to sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities.

We are at a crucial moment on the west coast. If things continue in the current direction, the intergenerational link is going to be severely or completely broken. Taking the control of resources outside of coastal communities and the fishers who fish them can have a negative impact on sustainability. Independent multi-generational fishers have the most to lose if a fishery isn't sustainably managed.

There are great amounts of pride, respect for the ocean, and knowledge transferred generationally in commercial fishing—transmission to family, and to all the people starting out in the industry who come to work for multi-generational fishers. I have seen this transmission through my own family and in action on both coasts. It's an extremely positive experience being on a boat with a multi-generational family fisher or someone who has directly learned from one.

Many multi-generational fishing families on the west coast have members who would like to continue working in the industry. Unfortunately, many of them are unable to make a decent living to support their families and ultimately have to make the choice to look for work elsewhere.

It's the same problem that is being seen in the Vancouver housing market. Many young people would love to own a home in Vancouver, but it's not a realistic option. Houses are no longer a place to live, but an investment to make profit from. This creates a speculative market and drives up the cost.

In the same way, owning fishing licences and quota under current policy on the west coast has become an investment that pays high returns. Just as stand-alone houses in Vancouver are unaffordable to the vast majority of the population, fishing licences are unaffordable to almost everyone trying to enter or expand within the fishery, and that is because of the speculative market.

The threat this creates to long-term sustainability is that the current system on the west coast creates the same differences that can be seen between home owners and renters. Fishermen who are only able to lease licences and quota, by circumstance, don't always have the same long-term vision and goals as independent owner-operators. It creates an attitude of making as much as you can as quickly as you can to offset the huge cost of leasing the licences and quota. If you don't feel you have a stake in the future, why would you be worried about the long term?

By preserving or promoting the independence of active fish harvesters on the west coast, you would be promoting sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities, which leads to my second point.

To fully understand what is happening in an ecosystem, the knowledge of commercial fishers needs to be added as a consideration for the decision-making. The men and women who have fished for their entire lives have intimate community knowledge of their local ecosystems. These fishers have worked on the water for 30 years, 40 years, and more, as have their parents before them. Utilizing their knowledge could ultimately help DFO make better management decisions.

Bill C-68 should afford opportunities for knowledge transmission and decision-making from commercial fish harvesters and involve them more in the process. Through my work at a biologist, fisheries monitoring coordinator, and commercial fisher, I've noticed that there is a negative attitude toward using the knowledge of fish harvesters in management decisions. A broken link exists in communication, where the knowledge of fishermen is not being accounted for and is being unfairly branded as untrustworthy. This is to the detriment of all involved and is creating great amounts of extra work and making it harder to enact positive change.

I see a future where fishers are inextricably involved in fisheries management, monitoring, and enhancement, using their on-the-ground knowledge and innovative thinking to work together with government to improve the fisheries for present and future generations.

I am so optimistic about the future of our fisheries in Canada. I hope people for generations to come will be able to have the same positive experience of commercial fishing that has enriched my life.

I've spoken with hundreds of fishers on both coasts, and the common thread is that commercial fishing is an important tradition and lifestyle. It is also a platform to challenge yourself and to explore and exceed your personal limitations. It's a meaningful living that completely connects people to place and creates a personal identity.

I have hopes that this experience and the benefit it has for our coastal communities will be understood and steps will be taken toward protecting it over the long term. We need you to all be partners in that.

In closing, I would suggest that Bill C-68 should include the following in its considerations for decision-making: one, the preservation or promotion of the independence of active fish harvesters in all fisheries; and two, the knowledge of fish harvesters. These two additions would be positive steps forward to maximize the social, economic, and cultural benefits to commercial fishers, coastal communities, and the future generations of all Canadians who are called to this work.

While working on the west coast for the past six years, I have collected photographs and interviewed those who work in the industry. I'm leaving you with a very small sample of their voices explaining why they love to fish and their hopes for the future. Their reasons for fishing and their hopes for the future echo up and down the west coast.

I want to thank you again for this great opportunity to speak. I really value your taking the time to listen.

[Cailyn Siider, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members, for inviting us to appear as witnesses and share with you our unique stories and perspectives in regard to our experiences as commercial fishermen on the west coast.

I apologize in advance for my lack of organization and a well-prepared presentation. We three were given less than 72 hours' notice to organize ourselves in time to be here to appear in person. James and I had recently travelled to Prince Rupert and were given little choice but to appear here today wearing our gumboots. Because of this, the words I have prepared today are largely anecdotal and from my heart.

My name is Cailyn Siider. I'm a fifth-generation commercial fisherman from Sointula, British Columbia. I have actively fished for more than a half of my life, beginning with gillnetting for salmon and trawling for shrimp on my family's 38-foot boat, the Milly III. My family is currently actively engaged in the salmon, halibut, rockfish, herring, Dungeness crab, and shrimp fisheries. I've spent most of my adult life crewing on salmon seine boats, as well as prawning, and most recently salmon trolling off the north coast of B.C. I am fortunate to have grown up within and around many examples of multi-generational fishing families.

After I leave Ottawa this evening, I will return to the west coast to begin preparations to fish prawns on a multi-generational family boat from Campbell River. Following the prawn season, I will begin the northern salmon troll season on an independently owned boat from Pender Harbour. Unfortunately, these examples of independent, multi-generational family fishing operations have become the exception rather than the norm on the west coast.

I am currently in the process of completing my B.A. in peace and conflict studies, a program devoted to social justice, community-building, and grassroots social change. I chose this program because I believe that, coupled with my passion and intimate knowledge of the commercial fishing industry, I may have an opportunity to help turn the tide of the devastation that current fisheries policy on the west coast has inflicted upon my family, my friends, and the communities I belong to and cherish. Being invited here today helps to solidify this belief that there is hope for our communities and a future for young fishermen, like Chelsey, James, and me. We want to be the future of the commercial fishery on the west coast, but we need your help.

Now I'll explain a little more about who I am and where I come from.

As previously mentioned, I'm from Sointula, which is a tiny community on Malcolm Island, nestled between northern Vancouver Island and the mainland at the intersection of Queen Charlotte and Johnstone Strait. Malcolm Island sits just west of the Broughton Archipelago, and along the migration route for the majority of salmon that return every year to the Fraser River. This is in the heart of the traditional territory of the Kwakwaka’wakw peoples, who have lived off the riches of the ocean since time immemorial.

My family are settlers to the B.C. coast. On both sides of my family my ancestors immigrated to Canada from Finland at the turn of the 20th century. They moved west, eventually finding themselves in the newly established utopian community of Sointula. These settlers from Finland were farmers and poets and philosophers who were not prepared for the coastal climate of the Pacific Northwest. A theme in fishing that most fishermen will be able to attest to is that you need to be resilient, adaptable, resourceful, and creative. Five generations back, my family learned this the hard way. Some took to the forest; most took to the sea. Since then, Sointula has been well established and known up and down the coast as a coastal fishing community.

I represent the fifth generation of my family to be an active fish harvester involved with the commercial fishery in B.C. My first summer fishing I was two and a half years old. My parents and I travelled to Haida Gwaii to gillnet chum salmon in Cumshewa Inlet. The trip west across the open waters of Queen Charlotte Sound made me seasick. On the trip back, after we were finished fishing, I sat on my father's lap as he navigated us through the open ocean swell. I squealed, “Wee, Daddy, do it again”, every time we could ride down from a swell and green water would crash over the bow. I got over my seasickness and have been fishing ever since.

I spent summers as a teenager gillnetting salmon with my dad, exploring the B.C. coast and spending time in the communities that rely on the health and sustainability of our fisheries. My sisters and I would take turns going out on openings. We learned work ethics, community values, independence, how to live off the ocean, camaraderie, and respect and appreciation for the coast and all the gifts it gives us. As I grew older, graduated from high school, and began exploring the world on my own, I continued to return every year to the coast to fish and spend time in my home community of Sointula and the fishing community that extends up and down the B.C. coast. I'm a member of the B.C. Young Fishermen's Network and the UFAWU.

I have sat on industry advisory boards and have been engaged in grassroots movements around salmon fishing most of my life. The first letter I ever wrote and decided to send was an opinionated piece, written in crayon, to fisheries minister Fred Mifflin, when I was six years old.

Growing up in Sointula, we had two operational fish plants: McMillan's, in the heart of the breakwater, and Lions Gate, uptown. Sointula had a large gillnet, trawl, and seine fleet. If you lived in town and didn't fish, you worked at a plant. If you didn't work at a plant, you worked at the pub or the co-op store, somewhere that was sustained by the money made by fishermen or shore workers.

There is an urban myth in Sointula that it once boasted the highest per capita income tax bills anywhere in Canada. I didn't fact check this, but during Sointula's boom years, I don't doubt it.

Today, Sointula has a handful of gillnetters, no trawlers, and one seine boat that hasn't fished in years. The fish plants that I used to visit with my dad and grandpa, where the old fishermen would sneak me candies while they jawed politics over cups of coffee, are long gone. The co-op store runs at a fraction of the capacity it once did. The pub is open during tourist season, if you're lucky. People my age and young families have migrated out of Sointula. Rumours resurface every few years about whether the elementary school will close. Thankfully, it remains open.

This is not a story unique to Sointula. This narrative is repeated up and down the coast, from Ucluelet to Prince Rupert to Alert Bay. Our communities are suffering and have been suffering for a long time. This damage is a direct result of the increasing privatization and corporate control of our commercial fisheries. Due to federal policy and opportunistic corporations, we have been pushed out of our homes, our communities, and our livelihoods. The Canadian Fishing Company or a foreign investor doesn't care about the preservation of coastal communities. Jimmy Pattison does not care about Sointula or Bella Bella or Port Hardy. The investment of these companies in the sustainability of our fish and fisheries is just that, an investment. As coastal communities, we have a vested interest in the sustainability and stewardship of our fish and fisheries because it means that our children and grandchildren will be able to eat wild salmon, to see the sun rise over the open Pacific Ocean, and they will be able to live the same adventurous, fulfilling, and beautiful life we have, if they so choose.

Our legacy is the health of our coast, the succession of family ways of life, and the vitality of our communities. The Canadian Fishing Company has its bottom line to look out for. We have our families, communities. and coasts to look out for.

To have owner-operator policy entrenched within the Fisheries Act would help to empower us on the west coast with the agency to rebuild the commercial fishing industry in such a way that benefits active, independent fishermen and their families and communities, not just the highest bidder. Adjacency would help us breathe life back into our communities and allow them to hopefully return to the Sointula that exists in my memory.

We need preservation, protection, and promotion of not simply commercial licence holders, which would mean anyone with enough money to buy a licence, such as a corporation, but we need preservation, protection, and promotion of active, independent commercial fisherman.

Jim Pattison's tax writeoff of a commercial fishing fleet does not need protection. Independent commercial fisherman like us speaking in front of you today do. Otherwise, we are doomed to live our lives as tax writeoffs for Jim Pattison and other disconnected corporate investors.

Until we change this, my livelihood, my life, is just part of an investment or tax writeoff for a corporation. I deserve more than that. Our coastal communities and active independent fishermen deserve more than that. We deserve to be treated the same as our brothers and sisters on the east coast. It's outrageous that there is a west coast fisheries management model and an east coast model. Where is that line where fisheries policy in Canada changes? Does fisheries policy suddenly change in Ottawa? Does it change when the corporate lobby on the west coast decides it does?

Whatever this change process ends up looking like, I firmly believe it needs to come from the ground up rather than the top down. This change needs to be centred around and led by coastal communities and active, independent fisherman. Anything less would run the risk of perpetuating this harmful cycle of corporate control of our common resource.

These are the first steps in a long process, but we are representative of the young fishermen in B.C. who are ready for it, who are energetic and motivated and want to go for it. Being intentional and paying attention to this process is just as important as any goal we work toward.

Chelsey, James, and I are young fishermen. Just the three of us, being so young, represent 40-plus years of experience actively fishing on the water. Imagine the hundreds or even thousands of years a room full of fisher men and women, such as at the Fisheries for Communities Gathering, represent. The traditional and community knowledge within that room, within our fleets and communities, is invaluable. Change needs to come from that experience, from those voices, from our voices.

That's a little snapshot of who I am and why Bill C-68 and these proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act are important to me. I appear here to provide anecdotal evidence that speaks to my experience as a young fisherman from a long lineage of women and men who have made their lives on and beside the sea. To adopt into the Fisheries Act, actively though carefully, practised policies such as owner-operator will be to help us carry on these lifestyles and traditions that we love so much.

I believe strongly in the power of storytelling. Storytelling has the power to bring people together and change the world. There is a great divide between this room where we are now and the communities we all come from and represent. It should not and does not have to be this way. All of us here now have a responsibility and role to play in closing this divide.

I hope that at the end of the day, we all have the same vision for the west coast: healthy oceans and thriving communities. Community engagement is critical. Listening to, respecting, and acting upon traditional community knowledge is fundamental in realizing this vision.

I urge you to continue listening to our voices, to our stories. If there is one certainty of all fishermen, aside from our independence and stubbornness, it's that we all have stories to tell.

The time to act is now, because as any old fisherman might tell you, the tide waits for no man and very few women.

Thank you for having us here today to share our stories with you.

[Linda Nowlan]

I haven't had the opportunity to read the commissioner's report. It's a huge issue on our coast. I know it is in Atlantic Canada as well. Right around us, Washington state is now moving to land-based aquaculture and moving away from open net pen aquaculture. Alaska is as well, so B.C. is caught in the middle. We're still doing it. We haven't really fully implemented the Cohen commission recommendations, which took a precautionary approach to approving new aquaculture, as you well know.

I'm not sure what Bill C-68 can do about this issue. There are aquaculture regulations under the act currently, so we could take a look at that issue in more depth, but I do know that the government is looking at a separate aquaculture act, as you mentioned, which I think probably would be a good idea, given that there's a very inconsistent regime across the country right now.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Reviewing those projects is really important. I think the minister did talk in some of the.... My Liberal colleagues referenced the additional funding in the budget to review that, which is helpful.

The last thing I want to talk about is that the environment commissioner just released, this morning at 10 a.m., a pretty scathing review of aquaculture. This amendment to the Fisheries Act doesn't talk a lot about aquaculture. I think it's because we're anticipating an aquaculture act coming in. Obviously, this is an issue of concern, especially for where I'm from on the west coast, because you have an impact of.... You have competing interests. You have competing mandates within DFO. On the one hand, they're tasked with conserving wild fish, which drives our commercial fishery and other fisheries, and they are also promoting farmed fish, which the environment commissioner is saying is putting disease into the waters, impacting our wild fish, and the department isn't even monitoring or aware of some of those diseases.

I'm wondering if there's anything your association could recommend for C-68 to strengthen that in this regard.