Fisheries Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Nicholas Winfield]

That is correct.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That's all that the proponent may receive back on his...?

[Nicholas Winfield]

If that is one of the reasons for the minister's decision, but it could be one of many pieces of information that the minister considers in rendering his decision. That's why it's very difficult to say it's exactly the case that you're presenting.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

If that were the only reason, is that all that the proponent would receive back: that the reason could not be disclosed?

[Nicholas Winfield]

It wouldn't be that the reason cannot be disclosed; it's that the specific information cannot be disclosed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have two or three questions on it.

In the event that the protected knowledge was a sacred site, I think it would be advantageous for the public to know that it was a sacred site. I think they would avoid it, whereas the chances are that people would go into it otherwise, so the rationale doesn't hold water for me, anyway.

I have another question, through you, Madam Chair. Does this same kind of protection of knowledge qualify or is it available for local fishermen? I'll use it in that sense. Basically it sounds like the aboriginal information can be held because maybe it's the honey hole. Well, the same thing should apply, in my opinion, for fishermen. Does it or doesn't it? Is it equal, is what I'm asking.

[Nicholas Winfield]

This is only referring to indigenous knowledge, so that's all I can speak to.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

So it isn't—

[Nicholas Winfield]

With respect to the protection of indigenous knowledge is what's being put forward and that's what we are seeking to respect; that is what is moved.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

So there is a double standard.

[Nicholas Winfield]

I can't comment on that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Well, it's pretty obvious there is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Is there any further discussion on LIB-11?

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I support this. I think this is a good addition.

To Mr. Miller's point, there are constitutional requirements here and I think that's different.

I support the government's side and their motion here.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

The vote applies to LIB-13 as well.

LIB-12 has been withdrawn.

(Clause 40 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 41 to 48 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 49)

We're on PV-17. If PV-17 is adopted, NDP-28 becomes moot, as they are identical. Also, if PV-17 is defeated, so is NDP-28, as they are identical.

Ms. May, on PV-17, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, as this is my last amendment, I just want to take a moment to commend the permanent members of this committee on the wonderful way in which you work together, and the expeditious and fair way you've approached clause-by-clause on Bill C-68.

I will apologize that due to the motions I mentioned earlier—the ones I don't like, and you'll remember them—today I have to be at clause-by-clause for Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-74, and Bill C-69 and Bill C-74 are happening at the same time, so I'll be leaving very shortly.

I just want to say that my amendment, PV-17, is to provide a requirement. It's great that this bill has included a five-year review process. I think that's appropriate, but what my amendment would do—not to go through every detail of it—would be to ensure that when that five-year review comes up, whatever committee is mandated to review the Fisheries Act as it has been amended by Bill C-68 would have reports from the minister that cover really significant bits of information that would allow a committee to make a good assessment. The minister would give them the report on the assessment of the state of our fisheries and the state of the fisheries stock, a review of what's been done under provisions of this act relating to the undertakings for which there were exemptions, and a list of all fish habitat where there have been no net loss and other offset measures.

I won't give you all the details, but that's the intent of this amendment, to have the Minister of Fisheries have an affirmative duty to prepare a series of reports for the use of the committee that reviews this bill in five years' time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chair, given that this motion is the same as NDP-28, I'd like to speak to it. This is our final NDP motion.

We certainly appreciate the committee considering these amendments. It takes a lot of work to improve legislation, and there is good discussion both ways. I appreciate the government members' consideration.

NDP-28, which is very similar to PV-17, requires that the review of the act include these additional topics as part of the review by the committees: (a) a systematic assessment of the state of fish and fish habitat across Canada; (b) a list of all authorized fish habitat damaged during the relevant time period; (c) a list of all required habitat compensation during the relevant time period; and (d) summary statistics from the public registry.

I want to note that the West Coast Environmental Law Association provided a brief on Bill C-68, and I appreciated their input. All witnesses provided this committee with a lot of very detailed and helpful suggestions. Certainly the WCELA's brief was extremely helpful.

I want to mention what they said:

Monitoring of compliance and effectiveness of habitat restoration has been found to be unsystematic and therefore compromises the ability to assess whether proponents are meeting required conditions.

Regular reporting on the status of restoration and offsetting decisions, monitoring, and outcomes enables evaluation of whether objectives are being achieved.

In the United States, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, a coalition of anglers, conservation groups, scientists, industry, and state and federal agencies was formed in 2006 with the priority goals of preparing five-year comprehensive assessments of the condition of fish habitat across the US. These assessments have been produced in 2010 and 2015, and have identified key areas of degraded habitat and drivers of degradation.

We recommend amending section 92 which now says that a five year report to this Committee or the Senate Committee should be prepared on “the provisions and operation of this Act” to also mandate the preparation of a systematic report on the state of fish habitat, fish habitat damage authorized by DFO, habitat compensation required by DFO, and the status of ongoing monitoring efforts across the country.

I wanted to get that in before the fate of this amendment was voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Is there any further discussion on PV-17?

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Chair, again, I'll look to staff. Clearly, this recipe should be held out to future fisheries committees in the debate on estimates and perhaps even focused studies. Are there other mechanisms that require this kind of report to be prepared and made available?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Currently, the only report is the annual report to Parliament, which is required under this act. It is primarily descriptive and statistical in nature. It doesn't delineate the details outlined in new proposed paragraphs 92(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d). It does cover (d), but it doesn't cover (a), (b), and (c).

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 49 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 50 to 52 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Seeing as it's one minute before we're supposed to wrap up, I will stop here. We'll start on clause 53 when we return on Thursday.

Because we do not have a great deal to go forward with on Thursday, I would also suggest that members come prepared for version two of the MPA study and/or version one of the vessel length policy. We will send out an email to that effect.

Great work, everyone. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.