Fisheries Committee on Nov. 14th, 2016

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

Definitely. As a nation, we can no longer afford to expect the federal government to do everything across the country. I think communities and first nations have been eager to play a role in their territories, to monitor and take responsibility for their land. That support and promotion of local knowledge can only be a benefit.

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

My next question is for our witnesses from Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.

You've seen the changes come and the implementation take place. Do you have any knowledge of anybody who's done anything, currently, that would have drawn sanctions under the old legislation?

[Mark Mattson]

That's a good question, and it's one that I get, as I'm sure you do, often.

Something we worked on in Moncton, the causeway back in 1968-1969, is one of the great examples we have of local knowledge and discussion about fish and fish habitat not being taken into consideration in a project. When they went ahead with the causeway, they didn't apply for a Fisheries Act permit to destroy fish habitat or for a Navigable Waters Protection Act permit. They didn't get any of the information from the local community about fisheries. It was about a decade later when the salmon fishery disappeared from the Petitcodiac River.

When we put together our case to support a new assessment of the project to see if they needed free flow in Moncton, I went out and collected evidence from all the old fishermen, who were now in their seventies, because there wasn't a consolidated or aggregated area where this evidence was collected, evidence such as who caught salmon and how often. We collected that as affidavits. That was a great example of a project that for 30 to 40 years really did incredible damage to the 17 rivers upstream and to all the species of fish in that river, because it exempted itself from the type of environmental law that the Fisheries Act now requires—well, it did require it until 2012, and now it doesn't again.

I see how prosperous that community has become since it opened up the causeway gates. When I look to the future, I think now of what's possible under the new Fisheries Act. If you put up “no fishing” signs in your community, on your river, in your bay, in your harbour, the Fisheries Act no longer applies, and the habitat protection provisions no longer apply, because there isn't a significant commercial, recreational, or indigenous fishery.

What sort of knowledge are we excluding? What sort of information are we missing out on? What sort of traditional ecological knowledge are we just ignoring? It's hard for environmental groups like ours to prove the damage, but we know from experience that it's happening. I think it's going to be a real onus on all our groups to make sure that we truly do a better job of documenting those changes and bringing them forward to government. Unless we're able to carry that burden forward with the government, it's going to be very hard to answer questions about what we are losing and what damage is being caused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Mattson. I'm sorry that I have to leave it at that, but we have to go to our next questioner.

We're going to go to the opposition, to Mr. Sopuck.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Mattson for pointing out how inadequate the old Fisheries Act was when he used an example from 35 years ago.

A number of the presenters talked about the lack of any habitat protection. On the contrary, under the new Fisheries Act, serious harm to fish is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”, with fish habitat defined as spawning grounds and areas, etc., so this idea that the new Fisheries Act has no habitat protection is completely without foundation.

I should also point out that the Blake law firm, in an analysis of the new Fisheries Act, made the point that:

...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 was very interested in the testimony of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters' Federation. Of all the presenters, they took the people-first approach, which I think is the right approach. Our new Fisheries Act focuses on fish productivity. My assumption, Mr. Allain, is that your members and your communities are intensely interested in fish productivity.

[Marc Allain]

In the productivity of our fisheries, yes, they are very interested.

For example, in 2009, our members entered into a strategic partnership with 15 Canadian universities that were looking at the health and productivity of our ecosystem. This was done under a very interesting program that was put in place by the last government. Research monies were made available to academics provided that they could come up with some collaborative research projects with their industry partners. As the owner-operator fishery, we were very successful in engaging in a whole pile of research projects with universities that were looking at the question of productivity, because it is very important. A healthy ecosystem is critical to fisheries' productivity.

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

That is why we had as a policy, under our government, the replacement of any lost productivity. You can do that in many ways through various fish management projects.

I'd like to now go to the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper to follow up on a question from my colleague, Mr. Hardie. Can you give me a specific example of any serious harm to fish or fish habitat that happened as a result of the new Fisheries Act?

I'm not interested in answers related to consultations or studies or how many scientists. I want a specific example of a specific harm to an actual fishery directly related to the changes we made to the Fisheries Act.

[Mark Mattson]

Sure. Just to be clear, Mr. Vice-Chair, the Moncton stuff occurred before the Fisheries Act, so it was afterwards, when the Fisheries Act was in place, that the meaning and force was given to it.

It is about people.

One of the great examples is the nuclear power plants. They don't have closed-cycle cooling. They have open-cycle cooling, so they kill fish 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there was no permit given by DFO. As a result of the changes to the Fisheries Act, the CNSC is now able to give that permit, and gave such a permit last year, turning what was illegal—and something that was pushing the industry to move to closed-cycle cooling, as all other nuclear power plants in North America and around the world have been moving to over the last three decades—into something that was now legal.

Our group was at those hearings. We argued against it. We gave that example before the changes were made to the Fisheries Act, and now what was illegal at all three major plants is now legal.

That is one great example. I can give you more.

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

Has a fishery been destroyed because of that? Can you name it?

[Mark Mattson]

Millions and millions and millions of fish are killed every year by those plants, and yes, the indigenous native fishery is fighting it up in Bruce County and here on Lake Ontario, where the fishery is destroyed already. For a couple of families down in Prince Edward Country, there isn't a fishery left that is really able to fight from a commercial point of view, so we, from a recreational point of view—because there is still very strong recreational fishing in Lake Ontario—are standing up for those fishermen and those people and trying to protect those fish.

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

It's interesting that there's a strong recreational fishery in spite of the example you used.

I'd like to turn to Ms. Hendriks now.

[Mark Mattson]

Why is that interesting?

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

Excuse me; I'm the questioner here.

[Mark Mattson]

I was just wondering why that was interesting.

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

I was actually appalled, Ms. Hendriks, at your testimony when you so blithely dismissed fisheries. You called it “just fisheries” as if the people who fish or depend on those fisheries really don't count.

I should make a point. In your testimony, you were mistaken when you said this new Fisheries Act only applies to commercial fishing. It was specifically directed to aboriginal, recreational and commercial fisheries, so I would recommend you do your research.

One thing I was quite shocked about in your testimony was on page 3, where you said you want to have “safeguards to remove the absolute discretionary power of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in fisheries management decision-making.” Are you saying that fisheries management decisions should be decided by unelected officials, and fishermen and fishing communities should have no access or recourse to a decision that a fisheries agency may make?

I would suspect that the fishing communities, especially in Mr. McDonald's constituency, would be very concerned if they had no recourse to deal with a decision that a fisheries agency had made and had no elected official to finally deal with. Are you really saying that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be removed from fisheries management decision-making? That's what your testimony says. It's quite clear on page 3.

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

Well, now that you've put the most negative light on my testimony—

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

I just quoted to you your words.

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

—I would suggest having principles that guide decision-making and take it out of political power. I'm not saying at all that we're removing the empowerment of communities to make comment. I'm saying it shouldn't be by political will that decisions are made.

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

Again, to use an example, there's a shrimp quota allocation issue off the coast of Newfoundland right now. What you're saying is that the fisheries minister should not be allowed to adjudicate who gets the shrimp or who gets the cod. I find that absolutely astonishing.

To me, the decision-making principle—

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

I didn't make any comment on—

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

—that elected officials have the final say is absolutely sacred.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have 10 seconds.

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

For the Mining Association, in your testimony you made the point that the new Fisheries Act has strengthened provisions that “have in practice broadened the circumstances in which the section 35 prohibitions apply”, so what you're saying is that the changes we made to the Fisheries Act actually strengthened the provisions of the Fisheries Act to protect habitat.

Do I read that correctly?

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

That was the practice of our members' mining projects. In practice, they were asked to account for more water bodies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Now we go to Mr. Donnelly for seven minutes, please.