Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

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

In a previous life, I used to chair one of those fisheries enhancement groups you spoke about, and again, I will certainly concur with what you said regarding the enthusiasm that these fisheries conservation groups—primarily anglers groups—have for fisheries enhancement. I would urge the department to continue along those lines.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you tell the committee what legal advice DFO or the minister had or sought before changing the definition of an aboriginal fishery?

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't recall exactly what legal advice; I know that as we proceeded with the amendments, there were all parts of the department and the government involved, including the Department of Justice, who certainly weighed into it. I think generally, because the answer is that I don't recall, but—

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Can you give us a list or let us know?

[Kevin Stringer]

Sure. Yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

You will provide that to us.

Can you also let us know who you consulted on the definition of an aboriginal fishery?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes, and what I can tell you now is that we didn't have specific consultations on the definition of “aboriginal”. We did hear from a number of stakeholders their views about what was in Bill C-38.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Can you let us know who that was and provide that list?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That would be great.

In terms of the environmental damages fund, you provided some earlier clarity on that, which was helpful, but if the funds are to be used in conjunction with Environment Canada for general environmental purposes, does this mean that DFO is no longer dedicating efforts to compensate habitat and is basically getting rid of the no net loss policy?

[Kevin Stringer]

No, the amendment to section 40 actually says that the funds must be used for the purposes of.... I should look at the exact wording, but it makes it clear that they can't go into something not related to fisheries protection and fish habitat. That's the purpose...that those moneys must be spent on. It's clear in that regard.

I should also mention that in Bill C-38, in the amended Fisheries Act, it enables an agreement between our department and Environment Canada. As we now have this new amendment to section 40, we'll be including it, and they've agreed we need to be involved with them, in terms of administering this, to ensure it is appropriately used for fisheries protection, habitat, etc.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

In terms of the definition of “obstruction”, why was this changed, and what impact will this have on fish habitat?

[Kevin Stringer]

My understanding on that one is the definition went back to the twenties. There were a number of changes, as I said, with respect to the fish passage sections. One of them was it actually referred to the types of obstructions that we'd be dealing with: logs were mentioned, and a number of other pieces were mentioned. Since the twenties there are way more obstructions than that. We've just modernized it to cover any obstruction to fish passage. That's basically what the intent was.

I think the definition went back to the twenties. Now I'm going to look to make sure I'm right: yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I think this is in keeping with what you've just said in terms of modernization, but do you have any examples of “other device” or a “fishing appliance”?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes, I mean, that's basically to.... I don't think there are any right now, as far as I know. However, there may be some, and we wanted to make sure that we're covered.

The Fisheries Act doesn't get amended that often. If somebody comes up with something, we want to make sure we're covering it. So we used that term.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

So you don't have any examples? It was...?

Why would you use those terms? Like, what does “fishing appliance” mean?

[Kevin Stringer]

We wanted to make sure we're covering nets, weirs, and whatever else we've written there, but we also wanted to say that for anything else you or anybody might dream up, in terms of something that will fish and cause obstructions, we wanted to make sure we were covering it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

You're saying what constitutes obstruction hasn't changed; it's still half the river.

[Kevin Stringer]

No, it has changed since the twenties. You have modern dams and those types of things.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I meant more obstructing the amount of the river, say.

[Kevin Stringer]

That's correct. We just needed to be able to say that if someone's going to string something across the river, and we'll say two-thirds is sufficiently far, whatever it is, if they're blocking fish passage, they can't do that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Can you provide the committee with copies of any studies that were conducted or used in the development of this policy or the new changes?

[Kevin Stringer]

Sure.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

I think I asked about the list of people consulted as well.

Thank you.