Fisheries Committee on Oct. 31st, 2016

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I want to be really clear here. This notion that's being bandied about that there are no habitat protections in the new Fisheries Act is complete nonsense. The new act says it's prohibited to:

...carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

Serious harm to fish is defined as:

the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.

Fish habitat is defined as:

spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

This idea that all habitat protections are gone under the new Fisheries Act is completely false.

I should also note that in a legal opinion, Blakes, which is a prominent law firm that did an analysis of the new Fisheries Act, noted that:

It is important to note the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate impacts to fish and fish habitat flow from its powers under the Constitution Act, 1867 over "coastal and inland fisheries". Canadian courts have confirmed, more than once, that these powers are limited to fisheries, as a resource, and do not mean the federal government has the power to regulate over all fish or fish habitat in Canada. In this respect, the new prohibitions are, to some extent, a codification of that which already exists at law.

I am a member of Parliament for a rural area, and the Fisheries and Oceans law enforcement officers would descend on my community and cause great economic harm through their interpretation and enforcement of the old Fisheries Act, which, it's quite clear, they simply couldn't enforce or define. That is one of the reasons why we had to change the act.

I agree with much of what our colleagues from the Canadian Wildlife Federation said. I think they were implying that many of the changes to the act were good. They would like to see some changes to the old act. I think that's certainly legitimate.

I have a question for Doctor Favaro.

Given that you're a scientist, can you quantify for me any changes to a fish population or community in Canada that resulted from the changes that we made to the Fisheries Act? I use the term “quantitative” deliberately. I don't want opinions or emotion; I want numbers and facts.

[Dr. Brett Favaro]

This is a great example of where we need to have better data sharing. Some of the comments that have been made today were only made possible by filings under the Access to Information Act. I'd love to answer your question. If we could have a better database of fish populations across Canada. I think that would be very helpful.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

So as a scientist who condemned our government for the changes to the act, you're telling me that you cannot find one example of a fish population or community that was harmed because of the changes we made to the act? I find that absolutely astonishing.

I should point out that in 2014 the sockeye salmon run in the Fraser River was over 20 million fish—the record in history. While I'm certainly not bold enough to take credit for that, that fish population surge occurred under the new Fisheries Act. To opine as you did—and I am referring to Mr. Olszynski as well—in very non-quantitative testimony in terms of fish.... You simply can't prove that there was any significant harm to fish production.

I should make the point as well that our new act focuses on fish production. I know it sounds very strange, but we're actually having an act based on fish. In prairie Canada for example—and I'll ask Mr. Olszynski this, because he comes from prairie Canada—we have a number of dams and reservoirs that made very significant alterations to fish habitat, such as Lake of the Prairies in Manitoba and Tobin Reservoir in Saskatchewan. Those particular major habitat alterations caused fish populations to explode and to do extremely well creating significant recreational fisheries.

Was the construction of those dams beneficial to fish or not, Mr. Olszynski?

[Martin Olszynski]

Obviously I would need to have some more information about whether there were any impacts in terms of methylmercury from those hydro dams and other downstream effects.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

They weren't hydro dams.

[Martin Olszynski]

But methylmercury—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I understand that.

These were flood-control dams in prairie Canada, not in the boreal forest.

[Martin Olszynski]

Okay. Any time there is organic material where there's a flood caused by a dam, there is a potential for methylmercury to occur, and methylmercury pollution to occur downstream.

I don't really know what to say except that I would very much support a public registry with all applications for section 35 authorizations, all authorizations, and all monitoring data following those authorizations from proponents. We could have a conversation about what effect those projects are having on impacts to fish and fish habitat.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Well, I represent communities that live around those projects, and I know very well, as a fisheries biologist myself, that there's something called the reservoir effect. When you create a reservoir, especially in areas of high soil fertility, the productivity expands exponentially. We've ended up with walleye fisheries that are second to none in spite of this major alteration to habitat.

Mr. Favaro, I have a question for you. We're in Ottawa right now. There have been massive changes to the watershed in the Ottawa Valley—the Rideau Canal, industrialization, urbanization—and yet the water quality in the Ottawa River is extremely good. The fish community is very diverse, fish populations are very large, and the fish community here is as healthy as it's ever been. How can you explain that?

[Dr. Brett Favaro]

The weakening of a law at the higher level doesn't necessarily override the benefits of local stewardship. I don't know a lot about the specific example you're giving me, but its existence doesn't preclude the fact that arguments were correct about the way that the wording was done in terms of serious harm and in terms of looking at fish that support a fishery. That would be my response to that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I have the very unfortunate tendency to actually worry about fish and think about fish.

Mr. Olszynski, we have in your community the Bow River, a world-class trout fishery, one of the best in North America if not the world. Again, that watershed has been changed dramatically because of the city of Calgary, agriculture, and so on, yet that fishery thrives. According to you, the way we implemented the Fisheries Act, Calgary basically wouldn't exist. How do you explain the productivity of the Bow River fishery?

[Martin Olszynski]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how, based on what I'm suggesting, the city of Calgary wouldn't exist.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Well, you talked about watersheds and how important it is to protect watersheds. I certainly agree with that, but the implication is that there can never be any human activity in any watershed that may affect fish.

[Martin Olszynski]

That's not at all anything I've suggested, in any of my materials.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It's pretty close.

[Martin Olszynski]

Not at all.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Pretty close.

[Martin Olszynski]

Not at all. I will point out that while the Bow is indeed a healthy trout river, there are other streams and other watersheds, like the Ghost watershed and other ones in the Castle region, where we have endangered cutthroat trout.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Cutthroat trout, yes. Some—

[Martin Olszynski]

They are being listed now. Those are the results of habitat fragmentation as a result of various activities, including recreational off-road activity, forestry, and mining in the Ghost watershed.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Am I done, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you. I look forward to the next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sure we all do. Nevertheless, we have to move on.

We'll go to Mr. Donnelly now for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all three of our witnesses for their excellent submissions. I found them very specific and pertinent to the task at hand—the motion, the question. I think all three answered my first question.

I'd just like to hear you confirm whether or not you would like to see the Fisheries Act, specifically section 35, the fish habitat section, restored or improved.

Maybe I'll start with the Canadian Wildlife Federation. A yes or no is fine.