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.
9:28 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to)
We will go back to the amendment as amended, and we have Mr. Arnold.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, first of all, I would like to seek clarification from Mr. Waddell. This refers to the major fish stocks that are prescribed.
Would this apply to fish stocks any differently from how the current act applies to commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fisheries, or fish that support such a fishery? Would it apply to stocks any differently from the current act?
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I honestly can't speculate as to the member's intent on this.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I'm simply asking how it's going to apply to different fish stocks. Would it apply to any different fish stocks than what are covered under section 35 of the current act? In other words, minor fish stocks, or fish that are not part of a commercial or recreational or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery.
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Section 35 of the act would be broader than this as a way to encompass fish habitat as well.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Section 35 would apply over this, then, by saying section 35 is broader.
9:30 a.m.
Nicholas Winfield Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Section 35, which is the former, “serious harm” prohibition to “commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery,” is amended here to refer to, “all stocks” or “all fish.”
Mark is referring to the subset, which are the main fish stocks, which will be prescribed in regulations. The rebuilding plans would not apply to all species of fish in Canada. They would only apply to those that are listed in regulations, which are the major fish stocks. The reason is that these are species that are being managed for commercial, recreational, or aboriginal use as compared to species that may simply be part of the ecosystem that are not being harvested for human use.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The requirements of the fisheries management in this subamendment would not apply to fish stocks that are not commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fisheries.
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's correct.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you. Further on this, you mentioned consequences “too dire” to move forward with proposed subsection 6.1(1) in referring to proposed subsection 6.1(2), that if consequences were “too dire” to move forward with (1), that is when (2) would apply.
Can you explain what you mean by situations “too dire”?
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I had started to provide a response to that, but I can elaborate on it. That was the B.C. groundfish example I was citing, where incidental catches, rockfish, which is a species that is in the cautious zone.... If we were to invoke rebuilding measures to ensure that the “targeted species” in all targeted species were to be well into their healthy zone, which is the...implications of the...at sustainable levels, then that would cause us to limit the extractions of rockfish, whereas we've already invoked all the protection measures we can on that species. To ensure that we're not having undue socio-economic harm by closing the entire B.C. ground fishery, for example, we would have that 6.2 amendment passed.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Further, on 6.1(2), it appears that this is providing an out for the minister to manage any fish stocks at a sustainable level. Is that a correct interpretation?
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It's still requiring the minister to identify the limit reference point, which would be where the species would tip over into the critical zone, so it would ensure that all species—
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
But that limit reference point would be below sustainability.
9:30 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No, that is the point of sustainability. The cautious zone and the healthy zone lie above that point, so it would ensure that the measures that are in place in that stock would be growing that stock within those zones, not dipping down into the critical zone.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
But section 6.1(1) requires the minister to “maintain prescribed major fish stocks at or above the level necessary to promote the sustainability of a stock”, so it's requiring the minister to maintain stocks at the sustainable level.
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
At a higher level, correct, for those that are already there and for those that may be slightly into the cautious zone, that sort of tranche below the healthy zone.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
“Sustainability” is the term in section 6.1(1), so if they're no longer sustainable, as in 6.1(1), what are they?
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We'd be then invoking measures such as closing certain areas during certain seasons or limiting tack, or changing gear type to ensure there is minimal harm on the stock in question and allowing that stock to grow back towards the healthy zone.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It's allowing activities to take place that affect a stock that is below sustainable levels.
May 24th, 2018 / 9:35 a.m.
Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We would invoke measures to promote the sustainability of that stock.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, thank you. In the earlier amendments and so on, I believe we brought in changes that addressed environmental flows necessary to maintain fish stocks. Would proposed subsection 6.1(2) also allow the minister to circumvent the requirements of environmental flows in the management of fish stock?
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The intent of this section is to address management of the fishery and ways to manage the fishery to ensure rebuilding.
In the case of managing flows, these are about managing ecosystems to sustain fisheries and minimize the impacts and threats to those populations. I think there are two different things. They're not related to each other.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
You think there are two different things, or are they?
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The legislative authorities in this section are about managing fishery and the impacts to fisheries from fishing. The sections that we referred to earlier are about managing the impacts of any industrial and human development activity on those populations. They have different intents. They have the same outcome, but they have different methods to achieve the goal. In both cases, we're trying to sustain fisheries. One is managing human impacts from industrial or human activities, the other is managing the fishing pressure.