Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you for the question.

There have been discussions with different groups since the legislation was passed, but let me start with the January 1, 2013, question.

What Bill C-38 says, or what the act says now, is that it will come into effect when Governor in Council decides that it comes into effect. What we've been saying in the department is that we will aim to be ready for January 1. It doesn't need to be January 1, it's not necessarily January 1, but that's the earliest date we thought we could be ready.

So there's a lot of activity within the department to try to prepare guidelines for our staff, clear direction for our staff, and guidelines for proponents, should it come into effect on January 1, 2013.

There is a set of regulations. One of the things that Bill C-38 did was provide a lot of regulatory tools so you can provide regulatory clarity. You can have minor works regulations that say you don't need a site-specific review in certain types of waters or with certain types of works. You can establish ecologically significant areas. You can identify certain fisheries, such as bait fisheries, that you may wish to exclude. We don't need those regulations to be operational. We need sufficient direction and guidance for our staff and proponents. That's what we've been working on, and we have been working with some of the key stakeholders on that.

With respect to the regulations, there are three that we're currently working on. One is information requirements, information that is required by the department from a proponent if they wish to have an authorization. The second one is the timelines we will take as a department to make a decision on that authorization. The third regulation we're working on is the aquatic invasive species regulations. Those are all subject to public engagement. The regulatory process requires public engagement and those would be things we would be talking to stakeholders about.

With respect to the other regulations, there is a set that we would anticipate going forward with. They are not required, but they would probably come later and would also be subject to public engagement.

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

Would those specifically refer to subsection 35(2)?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. A number of them—

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

Sorry to interrupt, but I think you know we don't have much time here. I certainly don't mean to be rude, Mr. Stringer.

The reason I raise this is that the question was asked of the minister. And repeatedly here in this committee, witnesses were told by government members that before those changes to subsection 35(2) were implemented, before those regulations were drafted, there would be full consultation with stakeholders.

I understand the legislation says that it can and will take effect on January 1, but there were commitments made that full consultation will happen. Whether it's the Atlantic Salmon Federation, or the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, or the Assembly of First Nations, organizations were told that, and they have not been consulted on those specific provisions.

Are you telling me now that regardless of the commitments that were made, those changes will come into effect on January 1 regardless?

[Kevin Stringer]

No, the changes will come into effect when the Governor in Council decides they come into effect. It requires an order in council. We are working to be prepared for January 1. It doesn't mean that it's necessarily January 1. It's when the Governor in Council decides.

The groups that you addressed—we have spoken to them about these changes. We've spoken to AFN. I've met with AFN on a number of occasions on this. We've spoken to the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. We've spoken to conservation groups. We've spoken to some of the industry groups.

So we have had engagement since that time, but not a formal—

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

You may have spoken to them, but they have told me that they do not consider those discussions consultations.

[Kevin Stringer]

I do hear you. I appreciate that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm.

Mr. Sopuck.

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

Thank you.

In terms of the environmental damages fund, in any given year how much money is collected through fines?

[Kevin Stringer]

It's awfully difficult to answer this one. The answer is that it depends.

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

No, I'm sure it does.

[Kevin Stringer]

It depends on how many charges we laid and how many we successfully laid.

In the last three years, it's been in between $1 million and $1.5 million of overall penalties under the Fisheries Act. This would only capture a portion of those. It's the ones effected under section 35 and those types of sections, not licence breaches.

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

Okay.

[Kevin Stringer]

The other thing is that under section 35, there were nine penalties given out last year. There were 32 a couple of years ago.

The other thing I would note is the substantially increased penalty provisions under the new regime. Whereas we didn't have a minimum before, we now have a minimum of $5,000, and maximums that are much higher.

So it's difficult to tell, but that gives you an idea.

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

Okay. That's fine.

So under the new Fisheries Act and the ability of the department and the minister to create partnerships, you can now earmark those funds via a partnership with a conservation group, for example.

[Kevin Stringer]

We can. What would happen in the instance of the environmental damages fund is that it would go to the environmental damages fund, which is a special-purpose account, established by law, and section 40 says it is for the purposes of restoration and fisheries protection. So it must be spent on that, and the department can partner with individual groups to be able to assist and align with that.

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

I know the recreational fishing groups that I have consulted with about this, when they learn about the ability to make partnerships, are very eager to create partnerships. I'm very pleased with that. I'm pleased overall with the new Fisheries Act, but that one in particular I think will go a long, long way.

In terms of the fish passage side of the new Fisheries Act, is the department, via regulation, able to impose standards on natural resource developers—for example, in how they build road crossings?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. We have the ability in the set of regulations I was discussing. One of the authorities for the minister is to establish national standards for anything, for fish passage, for water crossings. We also have the ability to incorporate standards by reference, so if they were established by provinces, by industry groups, by conservation groups, we can incorporate those by reference. It is a regulatory and public process to do so.

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

Can you also regulate the performance of a certain stream-crossing design? Can you make it species-specific? We know that in inland Canada the northern pike is the weakest-swimming fish. The convention is to build fish passage facilities or road crossings so pike will be able to go through and all other species can pass.

Can you pass a regulation that says all stream crossings in this region of Canada shall be built so that pike will be able to transverse?

[Kevin Stringer]

There's nothing in that regulation-making authority that says it must be a national standard.

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

Right. Okay.

[Kevin Stringer]

It can be a regional standard, or we can adopt a provincial standard—in Manitoba; those types of things.

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

I strongly support that, and I would urge the department to get on with that kind of design. Under the new Fisheries Act, there's actually a strengthening of fish population protection because of things like this. It's a misconception that the act weakens the protection of fish. It actually strengthens it via the imposition of standards.

I was interested in your comments about dams. I don't think we want to leave the impression that all dams are bad for fish. Take prairie reservoirs. There's a massive disruption to the fish habitat that was there, but as you well know, the reservoir effect kicks in very quickly, and we get a significant increase in fish production. The Lake of the Prairies reservoir, where I'm from; Tobin Lake in Saskatchewan; Lake Diefenbaker—they all, because of the dams, are supporting very significant fisheries now.

Do you take those kinds of things into account when you look at the regulatory process?

[Kevin Stringer]

We do under the new regime. The idea of moving away from just a “You can't block the river by two-thirds” to making it clear that the authorization in section 35....

Section 35 basically says that you can't have any undertaking, work, or activity that causes serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. That is applied based on the impact on the ongoing productivity of the fishery.

You have the authority now...in fact you have the direct responsibility under section 6. Section 6 says that we must take into account the contribution of those fish to the ongoing productivity of the fishery.

So as opposed to just saying you can't put two-thirds blockage, you're actually focused on the productivity of the fishery: how will this activity, in this case, or this work affect that?