Evidence of meeting #100 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Finally, on habitat banking, I am concerned about destroying one watershed completely, and then looking at enhancing another watershed in a different system, maybe even to overcapacity. How do we avoid that through this habitat banking system?
10:25 a.m.
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
These questions have come up at the committee before, and they're important questions. I think we need to have a broad cross-sectoral discussion about what those service areas are, ensuring within an ecosystem or a watershed a certain scale of watershed where that is allowable.
Certainly you don't want to get into a situation where you've completely lost one resource and replaced it with another. At the same time, we sometimes have situations where works are happening in completely pristine watersheds, and the offsets we're doing aren't particularly effective or necessary. In an adjacent watershed, there might be greater benefits.
There are no absolute answers there. Ideally, a habitat bank within Lake Ontario could be used to sell credits to somewhere else within Lake Ontario. That might be a good example.
10:30 a.m.
Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation
Do I have time to add to that?
10:30 a.m.
Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation
I would just add that the request we're putting forward is that you enable the act to provide for third party banking. The process and the way Canada rolls out a policy for doing that is definitely going to be a phased-in approach. It's going to involve learning from other jurisdictions and deep conversations and engagement with the provinces.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Thank you, Dr. Browne. I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off there.
For the next five minutes, we'll have Mr. McDonald, please.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, thank you to our witnesses, both here in person and by video conference.
I want to continue a little bit with the line of questioning of my colleague Mr. Morrissey regarding the owner-operator issue within the fishery.
I come from Newfoundland, as far east as you can get. Our fishermen are lobbying, or whatever they do, to make sure owner-operator exists and is managed properly. Right up to the FFAW, which is the union that represents all the fishers in the province, they want it included as well because it's so important to the sustainability of the fishery, as it is community-oriented and a benefit to the community.
We heard from at least five young fishers from the B.C. area here at committee in the past couple of weeks, and each one of them had a problem. You're entrenching owner-operator on the east coast, but you're leaving them to their own means on the west coast. They said the issue of trying to get into the fishery was very difficult, very expensive to get a quota, but they can fish a quota for somebody who sits on the 32nd floor of an office tower somewhere and only get a fraction of the value of that quota. In listening to what you're saying, the fishery is different and is owned by corporations. Everybody has a corporation. The fishermen in Newfoundland have corporations as well, but the individual quota is in the fisherman's name. He sets up a corporation. When he sells his catch at the end of the day or week, it's paid to the corporation. He takes his paycheque and the crew take their paycheques from the corporation. It's done, as you say, for tax purposes.
Why wouldn't that work on the west coast?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
It wouldn't work simply because we don't have the fish that Atlantic Canada has. That's why our fisheries have developed in really different ways. In order to solve those problems of sustainability and conservation, we have developed a system that relies on leasing, because you have to have quota to cover bycatch.
It's very difficult for me to see how we could maintain these cutting-edge, world-leading conservation systems and go to owner-operator. For instance, if you look at the halibut fleet, if you were to go to owner-operator, given the tiny volumes of halibut we have access to, each fisherman would get one trip a year. That's not a viable way to run a fishery.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
You say the value of the fishery on the east coast is much higher, but when you look at the landed salmon value on the west coast, the value of the shellfish industry, there's quite a bit of money, I think, to be made at the fishery on the west coast. I think there is great value there, and I think individual fishermen would certainly like to see it that way.
I'll change a little bit now.
You mentioned the Clearwater issue with the surf clam. Do you believe that any one entrant in a fishery should have control of the entire quota?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
I think in some cases that is certainly justified.
It's my understanding that Clearwater developed that fishery from scratch and did it with their own money. I believe they also have long indicated some willingness to find ways to bring indigenous people into the business.
Yes, I think it is possible in some fisheries. I don't think it should be the case in all fisheries, though.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
On that particular one, I'll have to disagree with you. Developing the fishery in one area, when it's already developed in another place in the world, doesn't come with the expense it would if it were a brand new fishery in the world with you having to develop the market. Some of the markets were already developed.
To Dr. Lapointe, I guess, and Dr. Browne, you mentioned that habitat is habitat, regardless of where it is. We heard from agricultural associations about, for example, a farmer who puts in a drain and all of a sudden has trout and habitat in that drain. Should he be restricted to what he can do on that man-made drain that services his farm and keeps it working the way it should? Are you saying that he shouldn't be able to do what's necessary to that without permission?
10:35 a.m.
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
It depends on the drain, really.
Lots of farm drains are first- and second-order drains. They can be cleaned without harming habitat, and there's no residual harm. We have lots of room to support farmers in not requiring authorizations and undue process.
But there are drains that have species at risk. There are drains that have habitat. Sometimes those drains are converted natural watercourses.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Thank you, Dr. Lapointe.
We'll now go to Mr. Miller for his five minutes.
May 3rd, 2018 / 10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses.
Just on that last point, Mr. Lapointe, I'm glad to hear you agree that there are some drains where you shouldn't have to go through the process, but prior to the changes in the Fisheries Act, before 2012, that was not the case. It was absolutely ridiculous, so thanks for recognizing that.
Ms. Burridge, you talked about the non-habitat provisions. I think you said that they must be amended. You also made the comment that it doesn't provide for provision, and you mentioned a New Zealand example. Could you expand a bit on all those three points?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
New Zealand's Fisheries Act is really clear that the purpose of the Fisheries Act is sustainable use of fish and fisheries resources for economic, social, and cultural benefits. I think what we have in the “purpose” section as drafted here is simply the tool—the proper control and management of fisheries. You do that to an end. I believe the actual purpose needs to be specified here.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay.
You also talked about the minister's powers to do with indigenous fisheries. You made a statement that DFO does not represent well, or at least that's how I took your comment, the recreational and commercial fisheries. Can you expand on that?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
Indeed. Madam Justice Humphries was the judge in the Ahousaht et al case, and those were her words: “DFO does not represent the interests of other [fishing] sectors.” That's because it's fundamentally in a conflict of interest. It has a fiduciary responsibility to first nations. At the same time, it's also supposed to represent the interests of third parties, and it can't do it.
The judge was very clear that there must be direct engagement by those other fishing sectors—commercial and recreational.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Would you agree, then, that the way that the surf clam licencing was dealt with, where basically the minister took it and gave it to some of his friends, is an inappropriate way, or a wrong way, to deal with licences and transfer of licences—not a willing seller, willing buyer concept?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
I think the judge again was very clear that willing buyer, willing seller is in the best interests of all Canadians, including indigenous peoples, and that did not happen in the Clearwater case.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Bloomer, you talked about proposed section 43. I'd like you to enlarge on that and on what you see as maybe some problems with it.
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Proposed section 43 has to do with regulations and the ability to cancel, with any kind of intervention, an authorization or a permit that's already in place. It seems in this proposed legislation that, at any time, somebody could step in and intervene. The authorization or the permit could be stopped. That's kind of an open-ended question that we have concerns on.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Do you have a specific example of where that has happened, or are you just afraid of what could happen?
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
We're afraid of what could happen. There are lots of things in the proposed legislation that deserve clarity, and this is one of them. It's a pretty open-ended ability to intervene. Once something is approved, it becomes “unapproved”, let's say, because of an intervention. That's not certainty.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
What would you recommend to close the “open-ended”, to use your word?
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
One way is to not have that ability, straight up, and recognize that with respect to pipelines, for sure, those conditions on those permits and authorizations are regulated by the NEB. They're assessed by the NEB through the life cycle of the pipeline. If there are issues, the oversight of that, going forward, will be through the NEB. Once that's been granted, there's not really a need to have the ability to withdraw it because of an intervention. It is regulated through the life cycle in the case of pipelines