Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much, Mr. Stringer and your colleagues, for being with us again this morning. It's good to be able to ask these questions and get the clarification.

One of the things I wanted to ask you about was that I was a little bit surprised when our colleague across suggested that there was no DFO presence in P.E.I. I thought there were still four conservation and protection offices in P.E.I., actually one of them in our good friend's riding. Is that not correct?

[A voice]

He forgets that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I missed that.

[David Balfour]

There will continue to be a conservation and protection presence in Prince Edward Island.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure the record was correct on that and that Lawrence wasn't feeling left out.

Now I'll get on to my questions. I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the Environmental Damages Fund. The AFN had suggested that perhaps first nations should be involved in the administration of that fund. I know you've told us that it's administered through Environment Canada. Do you know if the first nations have a representation on that at this time?

[Kevin Stringer]

I believe they don't. I believe it's administered by officials. It's established by statute, so it's subject to the statute. There's a special government purpose account that's established and dealt with by officials. First nations can and do, as I understand it, apply for the funding when they put out a request for proposals.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay.

Talking about the funding, do you know what criteria are used by the EDF to determine which projects would receive funding? I know that the AFN was quite concerned, and highlighted that they felt that if a particular type of aboriginal fishery, or a specific species, was negatively affected, the fines should be directed to the restoration of that specific type of fishery.

Do you know what criteria are used now?

[Kevin Stringer]

We can get you the specific criteria.

It does speak to linking the funds to the offence, basically, and the penalty. It's a bit broader than what the AFN raised in their testimony. I would point out, though, that in clause 174, with respect to the funds received by the Receiver General with respect to penalties under the Fisheries Act, the fisheries protection provisions, the legislation proposes specifically that it be used for “purposes related to the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat”.

The idea is that the funds would get applied to that, and then, linking that to what Environment Canada already has, which is a preference for the local watershed, those two things should give some comfort that the funding will go where one would hope it would go.

The other thing is that it's sometimes the case that the judge or the justice can direct certain things with respect to the penalty provisions that would have to be complied with as well.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

When we were talking about the EDF, we also heard from Mr. Bill Taylor from the ASF, with respect to the Environmental Damages Fund, that:

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.

As well:

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.

Can you talk to us a little bit about that? I don't recall anybody ever stating that it was going to be a certain amount of money or anything, but just that these fines would be used in that manner. But the penalties, I thought, had been increased under this legislation, and minimums put in place.

Can you talk a bit about that?

[Kevin Stringer]

It is really hard to estimate how much we're going to be able to move to the EDF because of this legislation. I talked last time in broad figures about the revenues that have come to the Government of Canada based on Fisheries Act penalties, but many of them are not associated with the EDF. Many of them are licence infractions. It's hard to tell exactly how much.

Our objective is to have sufficient guidance to staff, including our conservation and protection people, that they have the confidence to charge when charges should be laid. That's our objective, and that's what we're seeking to do. So we should be able to charge.

You're absolutely right in terms of the minimum penalties, that they have increased, as have the maximum. The minimum penalty now is $5,000 for an individual, $25,000 for a large corporation. The maximum is $1 million for an individual, $6 million for a large corporation. Under the previous regime, there was no minimum, and there was a maximum overall of $300,000.

So the potential is greater. As to how much, it very much depends on who's breaking the rules out there and how much success we have in the courts in terms of successfully prosecuting that. What I can say is that the Environmental Damages Fund has had about $4.5 million go through it since its inception in 1995. It's not an enormous amount, but it is substantial.

So it's about making sure that funds go to the right place, whatever those funds are.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Now, I certainly do not want to stray from clauses 173 to 178, but just as a clarification of what was stated here, my understanding is that there were two habitat offices on Prince Edward Island and they're going to be closed. Now, if you're telling us here that they're not going to be closed, we're more than pleased.

[A voice]

I think they meant the Service Canada office.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'd just like to understand: are the habitat offices going to remain open in Charlottetown and Tracadie or...?

[David Balfour]

Well, we were responding to a question about conservation and protection of fishery officer presence in P.E.I. The fisheries protection staff are going to be consolidated into the Moncton office.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

In Moncton. Okay. Thank you.

We certainly do not appreciate that, but if that's the case, can you tell me what the reduction of fisheries officers and DFO personnel will be in the province with these changes that are taking place for the benefit of Prince Edward Island, so-called...?

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Not wanting to stray, Mr. Chair, from your direction....

[David Balfour]

The objective is to consolidate staff into the Moncton office. We're still working through what would be the net reduction in overall complement as a result of this.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Balfour.

I appreciated Ms. Davidson's intervention, but just wanted to clear the air a bit, and I thank the chair for his understanding.

Also, I think it was Mr. Stringer who indicated that you had enough scientific information and research to put the requirements in place. Mr. Balfour indicated, if I understood correctly, that you had basically 15 years of research in order to put this in place.

Now, again, staying within the boundaries of what we're committed to do here, do you feel that you had more than was required? Or, again getting back to the massive reduction in scientific research that's taking place with your department, do you feel that will tie your hands when it comes to doing things like changing any fisheries regulations? Can you respond to that? Or is there just too much information?

[Kevin Stringer]

I can respond to it.

Mr. Balfour was referring to the 15 years or so of experience with the current program. It's science, policy, and program work. We get about 8,000 referrals a year, so we get 8,000 projects that come into the department every year that say, “We want to do this, so can we do it?” We used to get 12,500. Then we moved to an operational statement process that said if you're doing a dock or if you're doing a small walkway, if you're doing it, we don't need to see it.

But we have 15 years or so of experience in getting 12,500 to 8,000 referrals. We issue about 400 to 450 authorizations a year. We now know where those authorizations are required. We have a good sense of what's actually causing an impact to habitat. We also have work on fisheries. For the foundational science program and policy work we have, that has provided the foundation for where we need to go.

I think you'll find that public servants...certainly, I will say that we can always use more science, but you'll also hear us say that we will make sure we have the resources we need to be able to make this work. We've had our science people working arm in arm with our policy and program people to develop this and in developing the legislation, but also in getting ready for its implementation.

The other thing is—and I mentioned it before—that partnerships are going to be a crucial element in this legislation. The legislation specifically enables the minister to make agreements, and that's with conservation groups, but also with science institutions, with universities, and with others, and to connect into that important science work that's done elsewhere. More and more, we're doing this by collaboration. So it is a challenge—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I appreciate that.

[Kevin Stringer]

—to have sufficient science, and you can always use more, but we believe that we have what we need.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think you were referring to certain projects under a certain amount of dollars that are approved without coming to you. Is that what you were referring to?