Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Two minutes, Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Stringer, I would like to ask you again about the provisions as they relate to habitat protection, and the concerns that were raised by Justice Cohen about the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to maintain its mandate to protect fish habitat. Specifically there has been a rewriting, almost, or a refocusing into protecting fish as opposed to fish habitat.

I'd like to ask you for your comment on what Justice Cohen had to say.

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't think I can comment on what Justice Cohen has said. I don't think we can do that. We're still reviewing the very extensive document. We'll be doing that for a while.

What I can say is that the Fisheries Act amendments do focus on the productivity of fisheries. They also link the productivity of those fisheries to habitat and the protection of habitat, but not just habitat: habitat, aquatic invasive species, pollution, fish passage, other threats to fisheries. That is indeed what the focus is, but habitat is certainly included in that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Sorry: so your response to that is being reviewed. Okay. Maybe we'll get a sense then, once that's been done.

I have a last question. A number of groups, a number of stakeholders, have written to the minister or written to your department and asked for a delay on the implementation of the new regulations on January 1. I would like to know whether or not you've responded to them. Are you agreeing that there will be an extension because of the fact that there has not been consultation yet? Of course, we're specifically referring to subsection 35(2), but there are other regulations that are affected.

[Kevin Stringer]

There are other major sections that are not yet in effect.

As far as I know, we have not responded to those questions. As I said, that's a Governor in Council decision. Governor in Council decides when those sections come into effect.

As I said, and I'll say again, what we're doing in the department is to be as prepared as we can for January 1—if it is January 1. But at the end of the day, it's Governor in Council that will let us know when those sections come into effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, and just to clarify, under the new regime, an individual receives an authorization because their projects have the risk of causing serious harm. So they receive the authorization. Attached to it in many cases I guess are conditions of an authorization. The new regime requires by law this person to meet those conditions. So if at some point in this process there is either a person with an authorization that doesn't meet the conditions, or somebody else who causes serious harm, they get charged under the Fisheries Act.

In addition to the judge fining them, and this money now goes into this environmental damages fund, is it true the courts could also require the person to fix the damage they have caused, as well as a fine?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. The answer is yes. A court could say “You have caused this damage, you must take specific action to fix it, and you have a $5,000 fine”. That fine is the moneys that would go to the environmental damages fund.

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

Okay.

Mr. Allen?

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

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up on that question, if someone does have an existing authorization now, and they choose not to go back to the minister but proceed under the current authorizations, and there's a breach, could they argue that the breach would be under the old fine regime as opposed to the new one?

[Kevin Stringer]

No. I believe the answer to that question is no, and that's partly why we have made it clear in the legislation that an authorization under the previous regime is an authorization under the new regime, but you have 90 days to apply in this case. Very much because of that sort of question that was asked, and it wasn't absolutely clear, let's make it clear.

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

You said about 275 applications were probably outstanding. Do you have any reason as to why there have been some of these delays carrying forward? Is that just a normal course of permitting or....?

[Kevin Stringer]

It is the normal course, because some of these authorizations say you must make this sort of restitution, or compensation, or offsetting, and you must monitor how it's doing to make sure it's meeting its requirements every year, and you must send a report to the government every year that says it's being monitored and in good shape.

So the 275 are those types of things where there's still a requirement for monitoring and reporting. That's an example of the sort of thing.

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

Thank you.

On your obstruction sections, who or what groups would have the largest impact under this section? I'm assuming the hydro-power people would be one of the major ones. Are there any other groups you see as being impacted?

[Kevin Stringer]

Hydro power, electricity-generating facilities, those types, but anybody who is doing any kind of obstruction to fish passage, be it large or small, we're going to look at it if it's impacting the productivity of a fishery. Certainly those are some of the big players. The ones you have named are certainly interested in this.

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

To follow on to Mr. Donnelly's question, when you talk about fishing appliance, it's sort of a catch-all. Without having to change the act in the future, could you actually go in under regulations and specify maybe what some of these fishing appliances and that are, as opposed to coming back and having to revisit the act and statute and go through Parliament?

[Kevin Stringer]

I believe the section 43 regulations, the general regulations, would enable you to do that. I'll make sure that's the case: yes, it is.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to be clear, Mr. Stringer, what you told me previously was if there's going to be an obstruction, it is the value of the fish that will be considered only, not the value of, let's say, a major industry that wants to do something in a certain area. Could a large amount of dollars overrule the value of the fish? Then, if I understood you correctly, underutilized species would not fall under this act at all. A construction could take place in the waterway. Is that correct?

[Kevin Stringer]

Let me start with the first one. It is applied so that the difference between the old regime and the new regime.... The prohibition on killing of fish and other things is applied for commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries—not elsewhere; commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. There's a definition in section 2 of commercial fisheries, etc.

There are still questions about exactly what that means, and that's some of the work we're undertaking. We're working with provinces. We're working with others to be able to determine exactly what that means.

That prohibition is applied based on section 6.1, which gives the factors the minister must take into account in applying section 35 prohibition and regulations and other stuff. That is, number one, that he must consider the importance of the contribution of these fish to the ongoing productivity of the commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. Number two is fisheries management objectives. If we have said that this is a protected fishery, or that this is a fishery that's recovering, we must take that into account in terms of whether we're going to issue an authorization. The third is whether there's a way for the proponent or whoever's putting this work in place to avoid, mitigate, or offset the potential damage to the habitat or the productivity of the fishery. The fourth is the public interest. The public interest is what you've just identified could come into effect. Is there a broader public interest? It's a term that's used in many pieces of legislation now. What was in place in the previous regime was simply that you can't kill fish by means other than fishing unless authorized by the minister, and there was no direction to the minister, no principles, no factors, no things for the minister to follow.

You now have those things in place, in order: the productivity of the fishery; the fisheries management objectives for that fishery; the ability to offset, mitigate, or avoid impacting the fishery; and the public interest.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Also, conservation programs, you would agree, are of vital importance. The PEI Fishermen's Association is very concerned about certain conservation programs. In the lobster industry, you have tags on traps. Will the PEI Fishermen's Association be able to oversee this program, or who will oversee it? How does the department plan to handle this?

This is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. One of the most important conservation programs that we have is in the lobster fishery, which is one of the most valuable fisheries on the east coast of North America.

What will take place, in particular with the PEI Fishermen's Association, in administering or overseeing the distribution of tags?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

In this in terms of clauses 173 to 178?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

In some way, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay.