Evidence of meeting #103 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
I think probably I could turn to the officials and ask them to comment on some of that.
9:05 a.m.
Mark Waddell Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Madam Chair, in essence the requirements would come in and require a legal obligation for the minister to invoke measures to rebuild or protect the stocks as these are identified. The stocks that are already in healthy zones, which would be captured in section 6.1 of the amendment itself, would be identified through regulations. Once listed, we would be legally obliged to ensure the protection of those stocks.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to follow up as well. I appreciate Mr. Rogers' explanation; that's helpful.
I'm looking at proposed paragraph 6.1(2). It says, “The Minister shall set a limit reference point and implement measures to maintain the fish stock at or above that point, taking into account the biology of the fish and the environmental conditions affecting the stock”.
Does this become a legal requirement if this is passed? Could the officials comment on that? Also proposed paragraph 6.1(3) goes on to say, “...he or she shall publish the decision...on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans”.
Is there a timing or would that be set out in regulations? When is this published? What's the duty to publish in terms of timing?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The department already has a number of integrated fisheries management plans posted on its website. It also received funding in 2017 to enact rebuilding plans for 19 species as identified by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. A work plan is associated with that. The timing would be that work plan, I would propose, which we would see us have the rebuilding plan for those 19 stocks developed by 2021 in phased measure. That is in essence through prescribed regulation, how the 6.3 amendment allows that work to be structured.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm still confused. The department then will set its own time limit. Is that what you're saying? This doesn't prescribe anything. It just says it must happen.
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The department already has a number of stocks to which this would apply. We feel it would apply, and we would look to enact its regulation.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
What I'm saying is 12 months, 24 months, when does it have to publish the rebuilding plan?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The rebuilding plan is the 6.2. The 6.1 is the IFMPs for which we already have 76 stocks in the healthy zone and 72 of those have IFMPs because some of them cross multiple species, multiple stocks. We would proceed with those in due course.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
In this proposed amendment to the Fisheries Act, how do the rebuilding plans differ from what we do currently?
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
This makes it a legislative obligation, for one. Right now, the rebuilding plans that are being developed by the department are based on policy; the department has had the precautionary approach policy since 2009. It's based on international standards, and while it is well recognized and adheres to the United Nations fisheries agreements, it is still policy.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Waddell, further to your comments to Mr. Arnold and his question, if I understand it here, this is going to give the minister or the department, if a fishery is endangered by numbers or what have you, the powers to limit pressure on them, if I can use that term. Does that include pressure from aboriginals as far as culture and what have you? Are all pressures on that stock going to be limited if it's endangered, or is it going to be a double standard?
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
For clarity, the minister already has the discretionary authorities. These would limit his authorities. What we have with the 6.2 text the member just brought forward is, for appropriate cultural or socio-economic impacts, the minister can elect to not move forward with an IFMP in certain instances if the consequences are too dire.
But, yes, to answer your question, the measures would apply to all segments of the harvest.
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, they would be taken into consideration as the minister sees fit.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Can you give me some examples where that has happened?
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think that with regard to proposed section 6.1—I mean, it's an instance and it's not specific to indigenous communities—if you think of B.C. groundfish, where you have mixed stocks, a mixed stock fishery, they're primarily targeting species such as ocean perch, but what you're catching is bycatch rockfish. That would be an example where for the sake of the rockfish you might invoke an exception, because that stock is in not the healthy zone but the “cautious” zone, and the economic or cultural impacts of invoking the requirement for that species would have large socio-economic impacts, because you'd have to limit the B.C. groundfish fishery.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Can you give me an example where an aboriginal fishery has been included and they've said that you, as well as the commercial sport fishery or whatever, are not going to fish here? I want the name or the approximate location of where it has actually happened and the tribe that may have been affected.
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I cannot on the spot, I'm afraid.
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There are some. Conservation trumps FSC in the hierarchy.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Could you give me some of those examples later today or tomorrow?
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, I can get those to you.
