Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Kevin Stringer]

I'd have to look at the specific cases they're talking about. I'm not sure the answer to the very specific question: are there cases where this has been done and allowed? I'd be surprised if there were, unless there was a very specific instance.

I can also say that that section is not new. That section has been there since the 1920s. The idea is that a fundamental principle of fisheries protection is ensuring safe fish passage. That section means to speak to safe fish passage, so that you can't put a net across a river and catch all the fish that are going down.

There may be some very specific purposes under which we might have done it in the past, or it might have been allowed in the past, but I think that section is meant to be in there. It's been there since the twenties and we've used it in terms of fisheries management.

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

Some of the comments we heard the other day were on the first nations involvement in the Environmental Damages Fund and on basically a broad consultation group with respect to how this Environmental Damages Fund money would actually be spent.

Are first nations actually involved? Is that currently the case now where they're involved? What type of body is the Environmental Damages Fund, and how does that administrative structure work?

[Kevin Stringer]

It's by Environment Canada. Environment Canada has both a management oversight and a technical group. The management oversight is at Environment Canada. The administration is at Environment Canada. There is a technical group of experts who are engaged, which involves people from different departments.

It is often the case that the court can say, here is where the money should go, and Environment Canada will follow that, but they have some terms of reference.

It's done by Environment with the support of other government departments.

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

In the testimony Mr. Taylor provided to us the other day, I was asking him a little bit about the reality that a lot of the damages that have happened to fish stocks have happened under the old act; we're not even operating under a new act. With that in mind, he certainly did recognize that there need to be changes.

One of the comments we got into a little bit the other day was the whole idea of killing fish. I just want to understand that. He was concerned about the minister's ability to authorize the killing of fish. This measure was in the previous act. I want some clarity on that.

As well, could you expand on instances where this may be necessary?

[Kevin Stringer]

It is indeed in the previous act. Section 32 basically says that you can't kill fish by means other than fishing unless the minister authorizes it. That has been caught in the new section 35, where it says “activities”.

Now the difference between the old section 32 and the new section 35, in that the minister can authorize the killing of fish by means other than fishing, is that there's some direction to the minister in the new act and there was no direction in the old act. The old act simply said you can't kill fish by means other than fishing unless the minister authorizes it. The new act basically says the same thing, partly in section 35, but it also says it must be applied based on its impact on the ongoing productivity of the fisheries; the fisheries management objectives; the ability to avoid killing fish, or to mitigate or offset that; and the public interest. The minister now has some direction.

The idea is that if you have a hydroelectric facility, as an example, which has turbines in the water that are going to kill fish, right now they need to—and they have in the past—get an authorization to kill fish by means other than fishing. The minister licenses fishing, and this is how he enables or allows other killing of fish. That's an example of where you would do that.

The legislation provided no guidance under section 32 about how a hydroelectric facility would ask him to authorize the killing of fish. It now provides that guidance. That is what's new. The idea is that the minister must be considering the ongoing productivity of the fisheries. If the killing of fish is not going to impact the fishery—it's a few fish in a large fishery—then that's a consideration. If it's a few fish of an endangered species or in a significant fishery where it's going to make a difference, then that's what the minister must consider.

That's the difference. But that item has been there without direction since the seventies.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our guests.

In response to Mr. Chisholm, you indicated—I didn't catch it—that you need more scientific research in certain areas, or you need to explain the scientific research that you have. I'd like you to explain that further.

[Kevin Stringer]

The legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, we believe provides absolutely clear direction. It says that our focus is going to be protecting fisheries—commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. It provides definitions for those fisheries.

It also says we're going to apply that based on the ongoing productivity of the fisheries and we're going to protect those fisheries from serious harm. “Serious harm” is defined as permanent alteration or destruction of habitat or the death of the fish.

Then we need to take that legislation and provide direction to staff about how to apply that. The science, working with the policy and program people—and this will get into regulations—is to figure out exactly what we mean by “ongoing productivity”. There is a body of scientific literature that says what ongoing productivity is, how we can apply it in the Canadian context, how we can apply it nationally or regionally, etc. With serious harm and permanent alteration of habitat, what exactly is “permanent alteration”?

There's an FAO, which stands for Food and Agriculture Organization, of the UN, which defines “permanent alteration”. That is 5 to 20 years. The science folks are saying we should actually be looking at it in terms of the generation of a fish, and the challenges. With respect to sturgeon, it's a very long period of time. With respect to some other fish, it's a very short period of time. So it's working through some of those very specific issues about how to apply it.

The legislation is clear. We're working through the specific application of some of the scientific terms with science people, and that's what we need to provide the clarity to stakeholders and proponents going forward.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Basically, with any change you use a lot of science and a lot of research before you make those changes.

I'd like you to comment on the Institute of Ocean Sciences, in Victoria, B.C., which has been cut back. The Kluane research centre, in the Yukon, has been closed. The ELA, the Experimental Lakes Area, is going to be closed. We hope not, but it's what is proposed by the government.

Have you used these facilities? Have you gained much information from these facilities, or was there just too much information? Was there too much research and too much science, or was it necessary to close these because they were not needed?

I'd like you to expand on that, if you could.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Please keep your questioning to the subject matter.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I was just referring, Mr. Chair, if I might—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I appreciate what you're referring to, Mr. MacAulay; however, we did ask the officials to come back to answer specific questions on Bill C-45, and most specifically, clauses 173 to 178. Please keep your line of questioning to that subject matter.

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Dealing with clauses 173 to 178, did these institutions provide any information over the years that might have had some effect on what the result might be, or were they just not used?

Is that okay, Mr. Chair?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Stringer]

We have 15 major science facilities in the country, ranging from the east coast to the west coast. We use them all. In terms of where this program operates, fisheries protection in particular, it is in coastal areas and in freshwater areas. We have important freshwater institutions in Winnipeg, in Burlington. In other areas we have important coastal facilities that have contributed to this in St. Andrews, at BIO in Burnside, Dartmouth, and in other areas. We use all of the science that we have, that we can get. We also use partnerships with universities, with other institutions.

So we have a broad network of science. You can always have more science; it's always good to have more.

We are confident that we're going to be able to do what we have to do with the science that we have.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Again, with the indulgence of the chair, I didn't hear you mention, Mr. Stringer, if you have received or used information from some of the institutions, such as the ELA, the Experimental Lakes Area, and other areas.

[Kevin Stringer]

As I said, we would use information from all of them, including those.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

They are of great value when you come to making decisions on fisheries.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Chisholm, we'll move into the five-minute round at this time.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Stringer, I want to follow up a bit on the fact that you're now gathering the scientific data that's intended to guide the regulations. At the same time, the regulations are going to be.... You can appreciate, I'm sure...you have many years in this, and I know you take it very seriously.

I mean no disrespect when I say that it's not just the ASF and the AFN that have said they don't have anything to go by. As we heard during the limited discussions we had around Bill C-38, there's been discussion about making changes to the Fisheries Act for many years. These changes are big. People are asking what's going to happen now. I guess what you're telling me is that you still don't have, and therefore we still don't have, the kind of scientific data that gives us a better sense of where we're going and what the impact is going to be of these changes.

[Kevin Stringer]

We've had, with all the institutions of science that we have across the country, a good understanding of habitat and fisheries protection science. That data exists. With respect to applying the specific initiatives that we have in this legislation, and applying those at a program level, what we need to do.... There's usually a three-step piece. You have the science program and policy. You have all three of those things in place. Then you get a new legislative frame. That science contributed to the legislative change we're talking about. Once you have that legislative frame, you then need to develop a new program. And this is all done largely at the same time, but we need to make sure that the science is the foundation for the program. How are we specifically going to apply it? Science as a foundation, policy and regulatory framework as the next piece as much as possible, and then program implementation and guidance to staff.

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

I appreciate that.

I'm sorry, Mr. Stringer. I don't mean to be rude, but I have limited time, and the chair, while he's a good-humoured and reasonable chair, will only go so far.

We have the science. You would say that we have the science on the whole issue of habitat protection, and now we're trying to figure out the regulations. Part of that is to continue to be able to monitor these changes. We need to continue to have the science.

We've gutted fisheries science. That was presented in the evidence we had from AFN and ASF. In particular, as it relates to the habitat staff, the offices have been decimated across the country. There are three main protection offices now in the country with respect to the Atlantic region. They are in Moncton, Dartmouth, and St. John's, Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island is not even on the list, Lawrence.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

There you go.

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

I understand your rationale. As you say, we have the science, and now we have to move forward with the regulation and lay that out. But is it not, in fact, the case that we have to have the science to follow through to fulfill the mandate to protect the fish and the fish habitat? It's as if you and your staff at DFO have your hands tied behind your backs. How are you going to be able to implement your mandate, the changes you're proposing, given the huge cuts? Stakeholders and Canadians are asking those questions.