Fisheries Committee on Nov. 8th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome our guests here today, and thank them for making the time in their schedules to appear before us with very short notice. We certainly do appreciate that.

Today we're studying Bill C-45, and more specifically clauses 173 to 178. Certainly we would appreciate some comment and some feedback, and an opportunity to question our guests here as well.

I won't go on too long here this morning. I know both groups have some opening remarks, and I'll start off with the Assembly of First Nations.

Mr. Wuttke, if you want to make your opening comments, the floor is yours.

[Stuart Wuttke, General Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

I thank the committee for inviting the Assembly of First Nations to be here today.

Do you want me to go through my ten-minute statement now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Please.

[Stuart Wuttke]

Once again, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations and National Chief, Shawn Atleo, thank you for the invitation.

My name is Stuart Wuttke. I am general counsel for the Assembly of First Nations, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the AFN.

I have several remarks to put forward with regard to the definition of “aboriginal fisheries”, the prohibition against obstructing passage of fish or waters, and the environmental damages fund.

As a preliminary remark, we would like to note that my appearance today does not qualify as consultation with first nations. The Assembly of First Nations is a political organization and the first nations themselves are the individual rights holders of aboriginal rights and treaty rights. A robust consultation will be required by the Government of Canada with first nations across Canada on the amendments put forward for the Fisheries Act in Bill C-45.

Regarding Bill C-45, it's a concern that clause 175 amends Bill C-38 by replacing the definition of “aboriginal” in relation to fisheries. The definition in this section limits aboriginal fisheries to those fisheries practised for the purposes of using fish for food, social, or ceremonial purposes, or for purposes set out in land claims agreements. The amendments in clause 175 specifically remove recognition of “subsistence” fisheries and added those fisheries “in a land claims agreement”.

To begin with, the Assembly of First Nations is concerned about an attempt to legislate a definition as to which fisheries qualify as aboriginal. It is up to each first nation to determine the extent and nature of their fisheries. Leaving avenues open for policy to define food, social, and ceremonial fisheries may result in an infringement of first nation rights.

The government must robustly consult and accommodate first nations if it is to contemplate the nature of aboriginal fisheries.

With respect to amendments, clause 175 falls short of including all first nation fisheries protected by the Constitution Act, including fisheries set out in treaty and traditional fisheries based on first nation inherent rights.

The AFN is substantially concerned that the definition set out will freeze Fisheries and Oceans Canada's interpretations and policies in the year 1990, when the court decision reaffirmed first nations rights to food, social, and ceremonial fisheries in the Sparrow decision.

I'd like to note that the Sparrow decision included an important concept that is lacking in the government's attempt to narrowly define first nations fisheries. The Supreme Court clearly articulated that first nation rights must be interpreted flexibly so as to allow their evolution over time. It would make sense to define aboriginal fisheries in a way that allows evolution over time. Setting a definition that fails to acknowledge fisheries, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court after 1990, that fails to include wording that would allow fisheries that may be reaffirmed in the future, effectively prevents any flexible interpretation of rights and is contrary to the Supreme Court direction.

In a high-level engagement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Assembly of First Nations learned that the government intends to interpret this definition in a limited temporal scope, meaning that our fisheries that are not utilized, which often occurs for conservation purposes, will no longer be protected from serious harm.

I would argue that this does not qualify as a flexible interpretation. This is counterintuitive, and opens a door for abrogating and derogating first nation rights by allowing for species that first nations fish to continue to decline in population, potentially past the point of recovery, to the detriment of the ability to continue to exercise a right to fish.

Bill C-45 should be amended to make it clear that all traditional fisheries must be protected, whether currently practised or whether in a period of recovery to allow for future practice.

The government has argued that the definition of “aboriginal” fisheries need not include fisheries under economic components, since those fisheries would be protected under the definition of “commercial” fisheries. I caution that unilaterally deciding which fisheries are not aboriginal is contrary to the principle of self-determination, a principle embraced by Canada by virtue of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would like to note that the separation of commercial and aboriginal fisheries is arbitrary. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that the commercial mainstream principle is not necessarily appropriate for determining what income is situated on a reserve, and it is clear that income attached to a reserve is different in nature from the commercial activities undertaken by non-first nations.

Since aboriginal fisheries must be clearly protected by section 35 of the Fisheries Act, the AFN would recommend that the definition be expanded to include traditional fisheries, fisheries within treaties as well as land claim agreements, and fisheries practised for the purpose consistent with an aboriginal right. An amendment noting that the minister must consult with first nations in determining which fisheries fall within a definition of “aboriginal” would assist in making the act consistent with case law.

On our concerns with regard to clause 174, the Assembly of First Nations is concerned about the breadth and discretion in administering the environmental damages fund for the purposes related to conservation and protection of fish, fish habitat, the restoration of fish habitat, or for administering the fund.

Specifically, the Assembly of First Nations is concerned about how these funds will be administered and used. First nations are specific resource users recognized by the act, and first nations have specific uses that differ from other resource users. It is absolutely essential that first nations rights and interests are considered when administering the fund.

The AFN would suggest that the government include first nation representatives from accountable first nations organizations on the administering body, if and when such body is created. As well, as stated with the replacement of the 1986 habitat policy, the mechanisms for ensuring a preference for like-for-like habitat when compensating for habitat damages may no longer exist.

The Assembly of First Nations recommends that the government continue to maintain a preference for like-for-like habitat in order to ensure that more utilized species do not receive preference in compensation. For example, first nations are the primary resource users of the eulachon fishery. If a project destroys or alters an eulachon habitat, compensation should not come in the form of enhancements of walleye habitat.

On our concerns regarding clause 173, the prohibition against seines, nets, weirs, or other fish appliances that obstruct “more than two thirds of the width of any river or stream or more than one third of the width of the main channel at low tide of any tidal stream”, may result in the infringement of first nation rights.

Certain first nation fisheries require weirs that extend across entire rivers. These weirs all have mechanisms that allow for fish passage upstream. As the right to practice these fisheries is protected by the Constitution, we at AFN suggest an amendment to specifically exempt aboriginal fisheries from prohibition. I would suggest that the government also consider implications of this amendment on its own assessment weirs, which are used in much the same manner.

To recap, the AFN suggestions are the following.

First, clause 175 should be amended to include a definition of aboriginal fisheries to include traditional fisheries, fisheries within treaties as well as land claim agreements, and fisheries practiced for the purposes consistent with an aboriginal right.

Secondly, the government should ensure compensation projects under the environmental damages fund to give preference to like-to-like habitat and ensure that first nations are involved in the administration of the fund.

Thirdly, clause 173 should be amended to exempt aboriginal fisheries.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wuttke.

Mr. Taylor, you're no stranger to this committee. I appreciate your coming today. If you want to make your opening comments, I certainly open the floor to you at this time.

[Bill Taylor, President, Atlantic Salmon Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, everyone. It's nice to see you all again.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to appear before you regarding Bill C-45 and the amendments, specifically clauses 173 to 178. I only wish that we would have had an opportunity for further consultation on all the amendments. I'll keep my comments general, with some specific relations to Bill C-45.

With respect to the Fisheries Act consultations, the amendments to the Fisheries Act were thrust upon Canadians without consultation. In answer to public outcry, Fisheries and Oceans Minister Ashfield promised consultation with the provinces, aboriginal groups, stakeholders such as conservation groups, anglers, landowners, and municipalities, to develop the regulatory and policy framework to support the new and focused direction that is set out by those proposed changes.

The deadline for approval of the Fisheries Act amendments by order in council is January 1, 2013, and that date is fast approaching. DFO has arranged no meaningful consultation before this.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation, ASF, recognizes that DFO staff are trying to consult with the provinces and develop the scientific data that would guide the amendments. Stakeholders such as ASF would benefit from being able to review some of the important scientific foundation work that has already been provided by DFO scientists through the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat.

We request, on behalf of the Canadian public, access to these reports, and to have scientists available with whom we can discuss the scientific underpinnings to the key concepts of the amended act.

ASF is still committed to working with DFO to ensure that the implementation of the amended Fisheries Act will protect our fish and their habitats from the impacts of industrial projects in an effective and cost-efficient way, and sustain the many economic and social benefits our recreational fisheries provide now and far into the future. We cannot do this without meaningful consultation that is framed by DFO by providing its information and scientific data that spells out the rationale for protection of our fish and their habitat, amended under the Fisheries Act.

ASF recommends that to allow for meaningful, informed consultation to occur, the order in council required to have the changes to the act come into force by the January 1 date be deferred to June 2013. This extension should ensure adequate consultation and the involvement of all interested Canadians, and time for government officials to do an effective job to develop and share with stakeholders their science-based input.

ASF has prepared a preliminary report, which we have shared with DFO, on the Fisheries Act amendments. In summary, I'll speak to some of those items.

With respect to habitat, fisheries are very important, but a fishery is only as good as the health of the fish and the habitat in the ecosystem on which they depend. This should be the fundamental premise of implementation of the act. The principle of no net loss should continue and be applied consistently.

Regarding recreational fish, ASF emphasizes that protecting the recreational fishery requires not only protecting the specific recreational fish, but also the fish that support the recreational fish. There must be protection of the ecosystem, which supports the health and existence of recreational fish, and the fish that support those fish. The definition of a recreational fishery, as meaning that a species of fish “is harvested under the authority of a licence for personal use of the fish or for sport”, is far too simplistic and seems to infer that populations that are not healthy enough to support a fishery will not be protected. It is important to protect not only existing fisheries but also potential fisheries. The presence of wild Atlantic salmon in a river should be sufficient to identify the existence of a recreational fishery.

It's important to also protect fish listed under SARA. The concept of expansion in productivity of a fishery is not captured in the amended act. Enhancement and restoration of recreational fisheries must be considered, which goes beyond protecting the productivity of fisheries that exist now.

Regarding economic value, the economic and social value of recreational fisheries relies on healthy rivers and oceans, which brings us back to the importance of protecting fish and their habitat to support long-term economic benefits far into the future. It is important to protect potential economic value by protecting fish that may not support a fishery at the moment but have the potential to do so through restoration and enhancement.

Regarding partnerships, there is little information from government on how partnerships under the amendments would work. ASF agrees that efforts of the private and government sector should be more effectively integrated and carried out under a central plan. ASF sees some potential in working in partnership, and recommends that the federal government develop a paper that helps groups such as the Atlantic Salmon Federation understand what is entailed in the government's concept of partnerships and how they would potentially work.

With respect to science, science is of utmost importance in arriving at sound decisions on protection of fish and their habitat, which in turn protects fisheries.

ASF recommends with all urgency that DFO scientists consult with NGO scientists very soon to develop scientific criteria that will underlie decisions on fish and habitat protection in the amended Fisheries Act.

To assist in addressing the science needed to support the Fisheries Act, just as an example, the Ontario chapter of the American Fisheries Society is working with Trout Unlimited and the World Wildlife Fund to produce an independent science piece on key principles that will inform the discussion.

Again, the short timeline of January 1 challenges the effective use of such important scientific input.

Specific to Bill C-45, which is meant to clarify parts of Bill C-38, I'll offer the following comments with respect to the environmental damages fund.

This will not be the cash cow that some profess it to be. A substantial reduction in penalties has occurred, and this is expected to continue.

Because of the new subjective terms that have been introduced, such as “serious harm”, “permanent alteration and/or destruction”, and “ongoing productivity of a fishery”, the amendments are at present legally and scientifically undefined.

It is a huge challenge to determine scientifically how “serious harm”, or causing “death of fish”, affects the productivity of a fishery. This will be a challenge when considering whether to authorize obstruction to the fish passage.

How many fish have to be destroyed to constitute “serious harm”? How do you take into account cumulative impacts? Without clear legal and scientific underpinnings, it will be impossible to get a conviction in the courts. In fact, there will be too much uncertainty in the definitions of serious harm and/or permanent damage for a judge to make a definitive ruling, or for habitat staff to lay a charge, for that matter.

With respect to destruction of fish passage, I know of no instances in eastern Canada where blockage of rivers increases the abundance of native fish. Damming rivers alters the habitat from moving water to still water, a river to a lake. The species composition for a river is very different from that of a lake, and this is often to the detriment of native fish. Although there may be an increase in fish biomass, this is often not in favour of a native wild fish. Productivity of a non-native fish to the detriment of a native fish is simply not acceptable.

Then there's the impact of serious cuts to the DFO habitat staff. These are the people who would make the charges that would lead to the convictions that would lead to the money in the environmental damages fund. We know now that the new fisheries protection program, which was formerly habitat, will have only 16 service delivery points across the country.

With respect to the Atlantic region, these offices will be located in three cities: Moncton, Dartmouth, and St. John's, Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island didn't make the list despite the province's significant impact on river habitat from agricultural runoff. In the Gulf region, we have lost the Tracadie and Charlottetown offices. In Newfoundland, five offices have been reduced to one. In Nova Scotia, at least four offices have been reduced to one.

In 2000, in the Pacific region, there were 1,800 habitat-related investigations, leading to 49 convictions. By 2010, the number of investigations was down to only 300. Convictions under the habitat provisions were down to only one.

The constant pressure of reducing staff and budgets has led to the staff being unable to do their jobs. Habitat protection has been dismantled, which leaves little hope that there will be effective control of assaults on fish habitat or much money flowing into the environmental damages fund.

I could go on, but I'll finish by urging this committee to use its influence to delay approval of the amendments by order in council to allow time to ensure that these amendments are scientifically and legally defensible and that there has been meaningful consultation with the many Canadians who want to have strong protection for our fish and fish habitat.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.

We'll enter into our question time, but before we do, I just want to ask members to please be mindful of the subject matter and to try to keep your questions and comments on topic.

I do tend to allow a lot of latitude with our questioning, but please try to cooperate. The idea here is to try to get as much information from our guests as possible. I won't belabour the point.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

The guilty party has taken heed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

The guilty party has taken heed: all right.

We will move into the first round of questioning, and Mr. Sopuck will lead off.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Taylor, just as a little bit of clarification in terms of the consultation for this act, I would remind people that, as members of Parliament, we are constantly consulting with our constituents and interest groups. I can assure you that, at least in my case, as a Manitoba MP, I had extensive consultations with municipalities in terms of the difficulties of the old Fisheries Act.

So it's not quite correct that there wasn't consultation on this. The municipal governments across Canada, as you know, had grave questions about how the previous Fisheries Act was administered. That's just a comment.

As for the environmental damages fund, when we had officials before our committee earlier, they talked about... They expected to raise about $1 million per year. I asked the question specifically of the officials, about what size of fund.

Would you anticipate the Atlantic Salmon Federation applying to the environmental damages fund, assuming that there will be $1 million plus in that fund?

[Bill Taylor]

Assuming there was funding available, yes, perhaps, for habitat restoration projects; absolutely. Based on what we've seen in terms of the charges and then the moneys that have flown to the previous fund, we don't anticipate very much, but certainly if that was the scenario, yes.

Speaking from the Atlantic Salmon Federation's perspective with respect to consultation, there has been very, very little consultation with us. Certainly we've had meetings with DFO, which I want to recognize and appreciate, but DFO has been under the gun as far as timing.

In terms of the consultations that we have had, while DFO staff may describe them as consultations—in our mind consultation is give-and-take, and taking the time for groups like ours to understand the implications of these changes—I can tell you that the couple of meetings we've had have been very brief and there's been no give, on our part, or response to questions.

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

Of course, conservation groups across Canada have always been asking for earmarked funds to be specifically directed towards conservation programming, so I think the environmental damages fund, the earmarking of that fund for conservation work, is a direct response to the desires of conservation groups.

Can you talk about the kind of habitat and fish population enhancement work that the Atlantic Salmon Federation does? It's no secret that I belong to the ASF, and I'm very interested in what the organization does. I think the rest of Canada needs to hear about the work that the ASF has done.

[Bill Taylor]

I'd be happy to. I can be briefer and take further questions if need be.

Just very quickly, the Atlantic Salmon Federation is truly a federation. We have provincial councils in Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces, under which there are 125 local river associations like the Hammond River Angling Association, the St. Mary's River Association, and so on and so forth. There's a lot of habitat restoration work, which is volunteer-driven.

A prime example would be on the West River of Sheet Harbour in Nova Scotia. The whole southwest coast of Nova Scotia has been decimated. The wild salmon population was decimated by acid rain. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, working with the Nova Scotia Salmon Association, has spent almost a million dollars, and then volunteer labour on top of that, on an acid rain mitigation project on the West River of Sheet Harbour. Since that project's been in place, the last six years we have seen each and every year a dramatic increase in both the insect life in the West River, and also the brook trout life, and the young salmon life as well. That is an example of a river that, right now, does not have a healthy salmon population, but it's on the rebound. In 10 or 15 or 20 years, it could support a lucrative recreational fishery. That's one example.

There are many other rivers in all five eastern provinces where the Atlantic Salmon Federation and our regional councils, volunteer-driven, are restoring habitat, making sure there are culverts under road construction and so on, streamside planting of willows so you don't have bank erosion, and many, many cases. The volunteer labour on top of the staff time runs into the many millions of dollars.

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

I must say, I commend you for that kind of work. In my view, that's real environmentalism in action. Too many groups and people just talk. I really appreciate the work that groups like the ASF do.

I would assume that you have partnerships with DFO in some of those projects?

[Bill Taylor]

We do.

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

Could you describe some of those partnerships?

[Bill Taylor]

DFO is a partner on the acid rain mitigation project that I spoke about on West River Sheet Harbour.

In Labrador, we are working in partnership with DFO and a couple of first nations communities on trap-net fisheries, so we can hopefully work with them to move away from destructive gillnet fisheries that catch and kill every single thing that swims into their path, to trap-net fisheries that catch everything alive and you can release large spawners or non-target species.

We're also working with DFO on developing a genetic database on all of the rivers in Labrador.

We are working with DFO in ocean research where we are sonically tracking young salmon from the Grand Cascapedia, Restigouche, Miramichi rivers, way out into the north Atlantic, to determine migration patterns, impacts of changing ocean conditions, predator-prey relationships, and several other examples as well.

We work with DFO, we work with the provinces, we work with first nations, we work with local river associations, communities, anybody who shares our mission, our goal of enhancing, restoring, conserving the wild Atlantic salmon populations.

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

I appreciate the concerns you expressed earlier in terms of the focus of the Fisheries Act, and you're obviously nervous about it.

Having said that, I would argue very strongly that a focus on recreational, commercial, and aboriginal fisheries, and it also says the fish that support those fisheries...and it's very clear that the forage fish are part of that in the act, so I would recommend you look at that definition. It is equally likely that a sharper focus on fisheries that support people and communities could eventually lead to even more habitat protection for those important fisheries.

That is conceivable, isn't it?

[Bill Taylor]

Possibly, yes. Possibly.

You made a very good point, Mr. Sopuck, that I would like to expand upon. One example is that whether it's an aboriginal fish, recreational fish, or commercial fish, the quick response from most of us is, okay, we need to protect the fish that, as an example, Atlantic salmon eat, which are caplin, sand eels, and so on. Fine.

Another dynamic to healthy wild Atlantic salmon populations is the juvenile salmon heading out of the river in the spring, called smolt. There may be 10,000 or 20,000 out of a small river, there may be hundreds of thousands out of a river like the Miramichi. They all exit the river in a very short window of time.

If there is not predator cover...and the predator cover for wild Atlantic salmon smolt in the spring is healthy runs of alewives, herring, and shad that are coming into the river. We can't improve on nature, and nature has worked over the millennia to make sure that the young smolt going out of the river are going out at the exact same time that healthy runs of millions and millions of alewives and shad are coming in. The reason for that is so that the cormorants and the seals and the striped bass that are in the estuaries feeding at that time of the year are going to focus on the abundant prey species like herring and not so much on the smolt.

So it's not just the fish that support the fish in terms of food; what about the fish that support the fish in a healthy ecosystem?

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

Excellent point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chisholm.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our guests today for taking time, with very little notice, to come and make this presentation.

I want to be clear, however, that while it's extremely important that you be here, and are able to make a public presentation about these changes and the process, this is very much a flawed process in that we're being asked, as a committee, to look at these particular clauses in a very short window of time. We're going to have a handful of hours, in effect, before the finance committee is ultimately going to be dealing with Bill C-45 in its entirety, which is well over 400 pages, to prepare it to refer it back to the House.

We have our authority, in effect, under the committee. The finance committee referred these clauses to us to look at. We have no authority, however, under our Parliament, to make any amendments whatsoever as a committee. Through Parliament and the rules of order, we take our direction from the House. So if the House refers....

We had asked that these provisions get split off and referred to this committee by the House in a separate bill, for example. Then we would be able to hear evidence and make recommendations back to the House on the kind of things that you have suggested with regard to amendments.

Unfortunately, under the process that has been imposed upon us by the government, we're not in that position at all.

I just think it's important that you understand that while I believe, and certainly my colleagues on this side believe, that your presence is extremely important, there are dozens if not hundreds of other groups across the country who are directly involved in the fishery and in protecting fish habitat who would have important things to say about these clauses as well, and they should be here. Your presence is extremely important to us. I want you to understand that where it will go, or where it might go....

It largely is a public process to express your views, and that's probably about the end of it. I just wanted to be clear, and again, I want to thank you very much for agreeing to come to talk about these things.

I'm going to be sharing my time. My colleague is going to direct a couple of specific questions.

Before that, I want to just ask not just Mr. Taylor but all the witnesses about the whole question of the regulations that are right now before DFO to enact the proposed changes in Bill C-38.

Mr. Taylor, you referred specifically to a deadline of January 1, 2013. We've heard likewise that while the minister and government members of this committee made serious commitments that there would be consultation, that there would be extensive consultation before those changes finally went through, before the regulations were changed through order in council, what we've heard is that there haven't been consultations.

Now, I guess if the government is thinking about consultations in terms of what Mr. Sopuck said, that he's consulted with municipalities in his riding, and so that constitutes consultations for these purposes, then maybe the government thinks it has consulted.

I would ask you, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Wuttke, if you have any comments. Just how important is it that in fact consultation does happen before these changes are enacted? How important is it that we insist that the government delay imposing those changes before January 1?

[Bill Taylor]

I would say it's absolutely critical. I would hope this committee would have some influence in getting adequate time, an extension, so that real consultation can take place. I certainly wouldn't want to speak to the consultations that Mr. Sopuck alluded to. If that's taken place, that's great. I can only speak for what's happened in eastern Canada, either with the Atlantic Salmon Federation or with the many groups we represent. There have been a couple of very brief meetings. There has not been consultation.

If groups like the Atlantic Salmon Federation are expected to play a role in the delivery, expected to develop partnerships, expected to continue to invest time, energy, and resources in habitat restoration and habitat protection and wild fish protection, then we need to understand fully the implications of these changes. If we are expected to make contributions, which I think we can—be it from volunteer labour or scientific perspectives—it is very difficult to find a positive way to deliver on that contribution if you don't fully understand the implications of the changes that are taking place.

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

Mr. Wuttke.

[Stuart Wuttke]

Thank you.

Before I answer, I'd like to introduce two of my colleagues, Dan Pudjak and Audrey Mayes. I would also inform the committee that I have an engagement with some colleagues at Corrections Canada at 10 o'clock, so I'll be leaving around 9:50 a.m.

With respect to the question, we would agree that consultation in its proper form, especially with respect to the criteria set out by the Supreme Court regarding first nations communities, hasn't really been met through the engagement DFO has undertaken to this point. With respect to meetings with the Assembly of First Nations and DFO, there has basically been two conference calls and three face-to-face meetings. AFN was given a high, broad overview of what's in the act, but nothing really specific as proposed to the content of the act or the policies.

We've asked for information and documentation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. To date they have informed us that they could not release documents to us because they haven't had the authority to release those documents yet. So when it comes to the specifics of the regulations and what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to be pursuing, we really have limited access to what exactly that is.

With respect to the broader consultations, we do appreciate that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has engaged the Assembly of First Nations and other political organizations, such as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and others, but again, these are very high-level organizations. Discussions were at a high level. We would reaffirm that the specific rights holders are the first nations communities themselves and the first nations citizens. Engagement with them has been very short and very limited. We would recommend that proper consultation, especially within the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court, are acknowledged and pursued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Other than that, I don't know if my colleagues have anything else to add.