Fisheries Committee on Nov. 14th, 2016

[Marc Allain]

They could work, and we're proposing a way to make them work. We think they could work by bringing these principles into the regulations and making them conditions of licence, because then they become legally binding. Presently they aren't. People can look the other way, and it leaves us at a disadvantage because we have to go through administrative ways to try to deal with the problem, as opposed to legal ways.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's your turn, Mr. Finnigan.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

Before the changes to the act, in the old act there was a prohibition against destroying fish by any means other than fishing or carrying on any undertaking that would result in “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction” of fish habitat, or HADD.

On the new concept of “serious harm”, would you say that it adheres to the precautionary approach in managing our fish habitat?

I'll leave that open to anyone who would like to talk about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Mattson.

[Mark Mattson]

Thank you. It's a great question.

The change in legislation to “serious harm” is my point. It's putting the onus on the public to prove serious harm. What does that mean? They don't have access to the information and they don't have the money to actually be there and fight a lot of these causes. They also do not have the money to do the research necessary on the balance of probabilities to prove these things, but the proponent does. It's the proponent who needs to have the onus to show that they're not going to conduct serious harm, and if they do, they need to show how they're going to limit it and what they're going to do to replace it. That was the way the old act was structured.

The current legislation allows them to go ahead and destroy fish and fish habitat unless serious harm can be proven, but I'm not sure who does that. It's not clear from the law now. It's a very troubling situation that I think is unworkable. That is why I list it as the number one thing that needs to be changed as a result of the changes from 2012.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Finnigan, and thank you, Mr. Mattson.

We'll go to Mr. Doherty for seven minutes, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you. Again, thank you to our guests today. I find the testimony very interesting.

Ms. Hendriks, and to Mr. Mattson as well, it must have been fairly frustrating for you—given both of your organizations, or I guess more with WWF's close relationship with our Liberal government previously and today—that within 20 days of being a government, there was the release of 8 billion litres of raw sewage in the Montreal area. Our government took a strong stand and did not allow that and asked for them to reconsider their plans, so I'm wondering how frustrating that must have been for you and if you took a stand on that.

I'm trying to find where your stance was on that, but I don't see it. I'm wondering if you were fairly vocal on that issue. Were you blaming the previous government, because we took a strong stance?

[Krystyn Tully]

Just to clarify, Mark and I actually did co-author an article that ran nationally in the The Globe and Mail. We were very vocal about our concerns related to the Montreal sewage issue, and I'll let Mark speak to that in a moment.

We don't want to comment on partisan politics or which party is responsible for what, but in terms of chronology, it was the changes made in 2012 that created the conditions for all the confusion surrounding what happened in Montreal more recently—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Sorry, Ms. Tully; it was also our government that actually put a stop to that and told them not to release it. It was only after Mr. Trudeau came into power that it was released. Is that not correct?

[Krystyn Tully]

I can't speak to which party made which decision—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Sorry, but you would agree with me that the release was after the Liberal government came into power. Isn't that correct?

[Mark Mattson]

I'm not sure, but if that's factually correct, it's correct.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

November 20, I believe it was.

Thank you. That's great.

Ms. Hendriks, could you comment on that?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

Comment on WWF's relation to government or—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

No, just on how frustrating it must have been when you saw that happen, given your strong advocacy. Again, you're here today talking about protection of the environment, and you have a government that is newly in place and works collaboratively, and all of a sudden they are saying okay to the release of 8 billion litres of sewage.

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

WWF did put out a statement saying that we, of course, were disappointed on the release of sewage into the St. Lawrence River, yes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Would you say that was something that is fairly frustrating, obviously?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

Yes. That's why we are presenting to the Fisheries Act.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Ms. Hendriks, I find the information you've provided is very good. A lot of the stuff you are saying is okay.

We've heard time and again witnesses expressing an interest in DFO focusing not only on protecting fish habitat and preventing harm, but also on rehabilitating habitats and fish stocks that have been negatively impacted. We see in a lot of forestry practices that if you are cutting down trees, as part of your forestry practice you're also replanting as well. Is that something you think the next version of the Fisheries Act should include with regard to rehabilitation, by making sure that replenishment is there as well?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

First of all, thank you. I am an expert and was invited by this committee as an expert witness, so my testimony is from an expert perspective.

In terms of rehabilitating habitat, yes, there is legislation around that. The Fisheries Act should be around protecting fish habitat. Yes, that's true.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It should also be on replenishing the fish stocks, obviously, and rebuilding fish habitat and building that too.

How far should we expect the act to go on replacement of those fish stocks?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

That's a very good question. I can't speak to local fisheries. As I've said before, it needs to be consulted on and planned out and thought out, and science has to be brought to the table to ensure we're making decisions that are best for the community.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have two minutes, so I'm sure you're not all going to have a chance to answer this question, but I would hope that maybe you could include it in a submission to us. As a committee, we've heard time and again that we need measurables and goals, accountability and so on, and I think if we're to do anything with this Fisheries Act review, that's one area I would really like to see. I would like to see us set some goals, have some measurables, and have some accountability afterward. So far we haven't seen that.

With regard to what Mr. Doherty just mentioned, when we looked at the Atlantic salmon, the question was how far we should go to restore the fish stocks. I asked if we were going to restore it to a level of commercial viability. There didn't seem to be any appetite for that from the other side, but we heard testimony today that we should be restoring the Lake Ontario commercial fishery. Where do we find that balance within the act? Those are the types of things I would really like to see put forward to the committee so that we can have some accountability, some measurables down the road, and we know what we've done has been correct.

If anybody has a 10-second answer, I'd love to hear it.

[Mark Mattson]

In my organization, we believe that Canada's water should be swimmable, drinkable, and fishable. That's our vision. We're building a network of people around working towards that very goal.

We'd like to see the Fisheries Act be very strong in its commitment to restoring fisheries for every single Canadian across this country. That's the goal. That's the vision. Certainly, this is the only piece of legislation that the federal government has at its disposal to help us achieve that vision. We hold a lot of hope in this and have put a lot of expectations into this act. We hope it can help us get there.