Evidence of meeting #32 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 fisheries.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kevin Stringer  Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Catherine Blewett  Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Duly noted.

Mr. Donnelly, please, you have seven minutes.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you to the parliamentary secretary and our esteemed officials for being here and answering our questions.

Minister, I'd like to start off with a few questions on the Fisheries Act, specifically section 35. Your party campaigned, as did ours, to restore the environmental protections immediately in your new term, specifically to restore the protections in section 35 of the Fisheries Act within...I'd take that to be within 100 days. That's what I think is “immediate”. Obviously, that might be open to discretion.

Since the election, there have been 35 organizations, national environmental organizations, as well as individuals and first nations, that have written to the minister stating their concern. They want to reverse the changes that were made in 2012 under the Harper regime and that essentially gutted the Fisheries Act. There has been a petition from West Coast Environmental Law, with 10,000 signatures, essentially calling for that.

The government has been in office for over a year, and still we have the 2012, essentially gutted Fisheries Act in place. We've had a review of the Site C dam go through under that. We will see the Kinder Morgan application go through under that same regime. Now that we're involved in a consultation that is going to take us into next year, how do you see restoring the Fisheries Act, and specifically the HADD, as being “immediately”?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly, for your question. Maybe we have it right, if you think that we could have done it in 100 days and your colleague from the Conservative Party thinks we need to take more time, maybe if we land in the middle somewhere we have it right.

I do share your concern, Mr. Donnelly. I have taken note of what was an impressive list of scientists, indigenous leaders, and others who urged us to move very quickly. I was trying to express, perhaps imperfectly, that we share their concerns, and we don't see this as an interminable process or as something that should drag on and drag on. But we do believe that one of the reasons there was such a frustration with the changes that were made in 2012 and 2013 is precisely because they were made without any consultation, and frankly, through a parliamentary procedure that your party said wasn't very democratic or transparent, with which we agreed.

We're trying to find the happy medium in moving quickly and expeditiously. That's why we thought about things like the online portal. Over 5,000 people have visited that particular site since we launched it. The work your committee has generously undertaken to do should dovetail in a way such that we can move quickly. As I say, I'm undertaking not to wait the 120 days or whatever it is that the government would have to respond to a report. As a department, we're going to follow closely the work of your committee in order to respond as quickly as possible when we get your report and the recommendations.

I'll do something that is probably not wise. My hope is that in a perfect world we'd have legislation that we could table before the end of the spring session in 2017. There are reasons why that may get delayed, but it certainly wouldn't be my hope. I hope that as a department we can move quickly.

Then, Mr. Donnelly, we would again be in the hands of the House and parliamentarians. If we could find a way to have a quick debate at second reading in the House of Commons and send a bill to your committee for study and improvement, and if you find ways to improve our legislation, if you adduce evidence from people who have a better way to protect fish habitat, we remain open to that. I hope it's a collaborative process.

I recognize the frustration that people have, but as I said in response to Mr. Finnigan, we didn't want to just cut and paste what was there before, because there are a few elements of the reforms with which we agree. There are also, perhaps, ways to.... The Fisheries Act will not get opened up many times in a Parliament. It's quite rare. We want to do it and to try to do it as best we can. Hopefully, it will last for a generation if the previous one lasted for two.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

I think there are two issues at play here. One is the immediate restoration of the habitat protection. That's the HADD, the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat prohibition. I think that's what Canadians want reversed. I think they find, as I do, that taking a year and a half to do that is unacceptable. Now we're in a process of not just looking at the HADD.

Minister, you mentioned that we're looking at concerns around the changes, improvements to the act, science and traditional ecological knowledge, future realities including climate change, and current penalties. I think there are also others. Those go well beyond looking at just the habitat protection.

That, I think, is the frustration. Even at this committee, I think we have asked what exactly we are looking at. From the government members, I've heard that we're looking just at habitat protections. However, what is on the website, what is opened up to Canadians, and what you have mentioned today at committee is far broader than that.

I share some of the concerns on this side that if you're going to open the Fisheries Act, which, as you've just mentioned and I agree, is one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation in this country when it comes to protecting fisheries, then you need adequate time. For instance, we've had over 80 people and organizations who have wanted to come to speak on this matter because of the broad nature of this, and not just on the habitat protections—which are of a critical nature—but on modernizing the act, etc. That is a different issue. In the meantime, we have major energy projects and other projects including projects going through municipalities that are being approved under the gutted Fisheries Act with those lessened habitat protections.

You have written to this committee essentially to direct us to look at the Fisheries Act. Can you clarify that what we're looking at is beyond the habitat protections? Could speak specifically to what you mean by modernizing the act?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Sorry, Minister, to interrupt, but Mr. Donnelly is pretty much out of time.

I'm going to provide some flexibility here, Minister, if you could just provide a short response to that.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Donnelly that restoring lost protections, which was the campaign commitment we made and the mandate instruction I have, is principally around restoring the habitat protections that were weakened. I think that was the flashpoint of the previous conversation. That's where we believe the most important work has to be done.

When I say “modernize” I mean how a modern habitat protection legislative framework is supposed to operate in 2017 as opposed to 1977.

I obviously don't want to disagree with you, Mr. Donnelly, but I didn't “direct” the committee. That was a word you used, and I would obviously disagree with that. I wrote to the committee asking if you would consider this, and I was very pleased that you accepted to do so. I wouldn't purport to direct the committee and I wouldn't purport to tell you what you should study and what you should report on. I look forward to your deliberations and share your focus on the habitat piece.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you.

Mr. Hardie, we're going to you for seven minutes, please.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you very much.

Let's talk about modernization, then, and just keep going on that theme.

First, I would just like to confirm something, Minister. Some of my colleagues on the transportation committee came in with the attitude that the minister had already made up his mind, because in the mandate letter it just said to restore the protection, case closed. I understand that this is not the case, though. Your mind is not made up.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Absolutely not. My mind is made up and our government's mind is made up, based on a commitment we made in the campaign and based on a platform on which we won a majority government—including 17 seats in your great province, Mr. Hardie, which made us very happy on election night.

Restoring lost protections is a commitment we hope and intend to honour. It's a legislative commitment, so obviously we need the support of parliamentarians, both in our House and next door in the Senate. I'm not naive as to the legislative process. However, I also come here with an open mind, and that's why I value so much the work you're going to do and other ways that Canadians can share their ideas, because we, I hope, can in 2017 arrive at a modern, responsible, and balanced way to protect fish and fish habitat, which Canadians care so deeply about.

I'm wide open to the suggestions your committee and other people will have as to how we can best do that. I'm also wide open to working collaboratively with you, once we get a bill that we present to the House and send through the normal parliamentary process for improvements.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Okay. Then, one of the things that I've heard—some of it through the witnesses we've had here and in the other committee and certainly people who have been speaking to me—is that in modernizing the act, they're looking for ways to empower themselves; “themselves” being the commercial fishers and the recreational stakeholders. They want to participate more in stock and habitat protection. Do you have any comments, any thoughts, on the direction we could go to do that?

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Hardie, you're absolutely right. I've heard some of those same desires on my travels across the country, including in your province. The recreational fisheries sector in your province is well organized, well structured, and has a long-standing tradition of partnership with our department. The commercial fishery is the same, as are indigenous groups.

These are the people whose livelihoods and whose passion depends on the success and the health of these fish stocks. They have a very real, personal interest in getting it right. They also have, in the case of long-time commercial fishers or sports fishers or certainly indigenous groups, a vast body of knowledge of what works, what doesn't work, where has it been successful in the past, and where perhaps improvements could have been made.

We welcome any chance to partner with these groups. If we're going to get it right, it's because these groups believe that we found the right balance and the best way to ensure the best possible protection.

Laws and the respect of laws often depend on the confidence people have in those laws. One of the things I should share with your committee, Mr. Chair, is that the successive budget cuts at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over a number of years have put us in the position—and I'm seeking to rectify this with my colleagues at the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance—where even if we had a better, more robust legislative framework, as I hope we get to, we would need increased resources around habitat protection, monitoring, and enforcement.

I talked about that in June when Mr. Garneau and I had a brief announcement about how we were hoping to proceed. However, I'm also conscious that the legislative text is one thing, but we need both in our department and other government agencies. Who better to partner with us than the people whose livelihoods depend on these resources? We would have a much higher degree of integration and collaboration and, frankly, boots on the ground in many cases to do the monitoring, to do the enforcement.

You can have the best laws on the books, but if nobody ever gets charged because you don't have the ability to investigate and prosecute offences, the laws are illusory, and people are left with a false sense that you've done something. That's certainly not what we're intending to do.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Great. Speaking of modernizing habitat protection, could you talk about consideration? I'll repeat this question to the staff when we have a chance to chat with them, but give us your own thoughts. The impact of aquaculture on fish habitat is a big issue, a big question that remains unresolved, mostly due to the lack of science, especially on the west coast. My east coast folks can speak for themselves on this one. What are your thoughts on this?

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Hardie, you're absolutely right. You and Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Doherty and others would know your provinces better than I would, but certainly from my perspective, there is a heightened public concern around the potential impact of aquaculture on wild fish stocks. We should not be naive about that.

I know Mr. Donnelly has strongly held views on that, and he has legislation before the House of Commons now, which was debated last evening, I think, for the first time.

We recognize, as you said, Mr. Hardie, also that part of the reassurance for Canadians, who understandably are concerned, is that we have the most robust, transparent, publicly accessible, scientific, peer-reviewed information available to Canadians.

I shared with our colleagues in the Senate yesterday. It has done a report on the aquaculture industry in its fisheries committee, which I thought was quite instructive. I had the privilege of going to the Senate question period yesterday. In answer to some questions from our colleagues, I have told the Senate committee that we would be open to looking at the possibility of a national aquaculture act, for example. How that works and in what capacity obviously remains.... There's a lot of work to be done and we're not on the eve of doing that, but I'm prepared to begin the conversation, including with provinces and the industry and scientific groups, to see how that might work. Many of them have advocated for that. We would, obviously, at some future point want to come back before this committee, but that might be part of the medium- or long-term answer too.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

That concludes the first round of questioning. There's something I neglected to do at the beginning, and I will do it now. As you know, we were delayed by approximately 10 minutes for good reason. We paid tribute to the athletes of the Olympics and Paralympics. Because of that, I am seeking unanimous consent to extend this meeting by 10 minutes to 5:40 p.m. eastern time.

4:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

We will be adjourned in time to get to the votes, which are just down the hall, including the vote on my national seal products day bill, which you have just witnessed as an unsolicited comment and promotion for my own bill.

Yes, Mr. Minister.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

I have an event in Montreal so I'm going to miss the great privilege of voting for that bill, but I want you to know, Mr. Chair, that Canadians are pleased that legislation's being voted on tonight.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you for that. Thank you also for that promotion. That's very good. I'm sorry you couldn't be there.

Now we go to Mr. Sopuck, for five minutes, please.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I was really disappointed in the testimony from the minister and the parliamentary secretary for a couple of reasons because the words “farmer” and “municipalities” were not mentioned in either of your testimonies.

When I heard the latest comments on agriculture and farming, farmers being charged under the Fisheries Act is something I think they should be worried about. I know the farm groups—and I'm very close to all of them across the country—are very concerned about what the government is possibly doing to the Fisheries Act.

I should make the point as well, and I'm going to go on the record, that this notion that there are no habitat protections in our new Fisheries Act is completely disingenuous. The act says in section 35 that:

No person shall 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 is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”, with fish habitat defined a certain way. To suggest there are no habitat protections in the revised Fisheries Act is not quite correct. I would quote from one of the officials in the room here, Mr. Kevin Stringer, who on November 6, 2012, when questioned in our committee regarding habitat said:

Yes, that's correct. That's still the case under section 35, because if you look at the definition of serious harm, which is in section 2, serious harm to fish is defined as the death of the fish or the permanent alteration or destruction of habitat.

It's quite clear that at the official level in the department there was no suggestion that there were no habitat provisions in the act whatsoever. The habitat provisions in the act are still there.

I have a question. What quantitative evidence is there, and when I say quantitative evidence I mean values and numbers, that suggests that the alterations, the changes, to the Fisheries Act had any measurable effect on any fish population or community in Canada?

I'm specifically asking for numbers. What effect did the changes have on fisheries populations in Canada?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Obviously we share the concerns and we understand the concerns. We're certainly not seeking to diminish the concerns of the agricultural sector. I have colleagues in my caucus—my colleague, Lawrence MacAulay, and others—who have been quite vocal about understanding the legitimate concerns of producers and agricultural businesses across the country, so I hope your committee will consider that and will hear from these groups. We would welcome an opportunity to benefit from your advice on how we can do that.

I wouldn't have suggested—I hope you didn't misunderstand me—that there were no habitat protections—

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

You did.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

No. That wasn't my word. I think what I would have said is that we think we can strengthen them, improve them, modernize them, restore some protections that were lost. We can discuss the semantics.

I think we all can do a better job of improving the legislation. Mr. Sopuck referenced some comments from Mr. Stringer. We're really lucky that he's here today, and he might be in a position to speak to that, but more importantly because your question also, Mr. Sopuck, is very good around what are the specific examples where these changes may have had an impact, I think we can all agree that various fish stocks run into various difficult circumstances for various reasons. Habitat protections—

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

As you know, Minister, I'm a fisheries biologist. I've been a fisheries biologist for 40 years, so the notion that fish populations fluctuate is something I'm quite familiar with. I asked other witnesses in the previous meeting to give me some evidence about any quantitative evidence of harm that the new act had on any fish community, and nobody could. I gather from the answer that nobody has any.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Sopuck, the good news is that Mr. Stringer can do that for you right now.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I want a quantitative estimate of any harm that may have been done by the changes we made to the Fisheries Act.