Fisheries Committee on Nov. 14th, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all our witnesses for being here and for providing your important testimony on this important subject of amending the Fisheries Act or hearing consultation about amending the Fisheries Act.

I would like to start off with the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters. I believe you made five recommendations, but you also talked about restoring section 35. One question I will ask everyone is, have you submitted your wording for the recommendations in writing to the committee?

[Marc Allain]

We have submitted our letter to the minister and to the committee, and we intend to follow up with a written submission, both to the committee and to the department. We have learned that there is a separate consultation going on by the department. We will be submitting our detailed recommendations to you in writing.

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

That's great. I would encourage you to do that, because it is critical that not just witnesses but anyone who is proposing changes to the Fisheries Act through this process makes sure to send their recommendations in writing, in both official languages, to this committee. As you've alluded to, there is some confusion, and folks may think that just submitting it to the website, the ministry, or the minister's office is adequate. It's really important that it also come to this committee.

Mr. Allain, with regard to the wording you're suggesting on restoring.... I think Mr. Gawn recommended that section 35 should be restored and that HADD be included in the wording. I would encourage you to include the specific wording that you would like to see as well in your recommendation, .

[Marc Allain]

Yes, we will be providing very specific recommendations.

I have a question to you. Do we have to submit written submissions in both official languages to the committee and as part of your online consultation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Just to let you know, Mr. Donnelly, I've stopped the clock, seeing there was a question put my way.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, that is not necessary. We can do the translation. The rule is straightforward in the sense that distribution amongst the committee has to be in both official languages, English and French. Your submission to this committee, to our clerk, can be done in one language, if you choose. We will do the translation when we distribute. I hope that answers your question.

In the meantime, back to the clock.

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

Maybe I should have said “in either official language”. Make sure it is in one of them. Certainly for us, we need it in both.

Mr. Gawn, you talked about pesticide use and fish farms in Atlantic Canada. I'm wondering what you feel is the solution to dealing with that issue.

[Graeme Gawn]

We think the solution for dealing with that issue is for the Government of Canada to require the people who are using those pesticides to find the solution.

These are newcomers into the waters. They've developed an aquaculture industry there. If they're having a harmful effect on the environment and on the existing fisheries, they should be required to deal with it. That's what we see as the solution.

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

I have a more specific question. Would you support something like closed-containment technology?

[Graeme Gawn]

Yes, certainly. Of course we would support any practical solution. I think we will all find out that closed-pen contained systems are the way of the future. The technology is being developed for that.

At the same time that is happening, we have governments, provincial governments especially, that are busy handing out more of our oceans to the same systems that are currently being used.

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

My last question is to the independent fishers.

Are you hoping that changes to the Fisheries Act will address the issue of owner-operator and fleet separation on both coasts? Certainly in Atlantic Canada, the situation is far different from what it is on the Pacific coast. On the Atlantic side, we have owner-operator and fleet separation. We don't have that in British Columbia. Do you want to comment on that?

[Marc Allain]

Thank you for asking that question and clarifying.

We're asking for two things.

We're asking that the general principles underlying the owner-operator and fleet separation policy be brought into regulations. As I said, this was promised to us by the Government of Canada in 2004.

We're also asking for changes both to the Fisheries Act and the fisheries regulations to recognize the authority of the minister to pursue social and economic objectives very clearly, both in the act and in the regulations, and to link it to conditions of licence. That would then become enabling legislation and regulations for the type of detailed protections that you need on a fishery-by-fishery basis, whether it's in B.C. or in Atlantic Canada, through our integrated fisheries management plans, IFMPs. That is something that could work.

The situation in B.C. is disastrous. It will require a made-in-B.C. solution. For that, we are asking for an independent review of fisheries licensing policy in B.C., an independent panel that could make recommendations to the minister based on consultations with stakeholders in B.C. on how to get out of the situation there. The panel should hear from the people in B.C. on that question, because the system is not working. It's not delivering on Canada's objectives for social and economic development of our fishing communities.

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

I'll do two quick questions to the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.

You presented nine recommendations, excellent recommendations. Thank you for submitting those. Are you also submitting those in writing to this committee?

[Mark Mattson]

Yes, Mr. Donnelly, we'll be submitting a written piece later, along with other waterkeepers, riverkeepers, and baykeepers in Canada. We'll try to do that jointly.

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

Thank you.

In the remaining time, I want to switch to the World Wildlife Fund for their comments, because I was looking at the excellent recommendations you have put in here. We can review those. Thank you for submitting them. They're in both languages.

I want to finish by asking about this removal of the absolute discretionary power from the minister. In other jurisdictions around the world, do others do this?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

It's a very good question, and thank you very much.

I represent both oceans and fisheries and I will get back to you. I would like to consult my oceans expert, but I believe the U.S. act does restrain the political power over that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Now we go back to the government for seven minutes.

We're going to Mr. Morrissey, I believe.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I will direct my question to the independent harvesters. You made the comment that the review should be a holistic approach to reviewing the act and not focus just on the habitat side of it.

Could you elaborate a little on that, Marc?

[Marc Allain]

That's the basis of our whole point. We believe our Fisheries Act and the Government of Canada in its approach to fisheries should consider this as a resource, and that's what the courts have said. The government and the minister have to see fisheries as a resource that the government conserves, manages, and develops in the public interest and for the benefit of Canadians. That is pretty close to a sustainable development approach, and the Canadian government is committed to sustainable development.

That was a big breakthrough at the UNCED meeting, the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, when they said going down the road of just economic development doesn't sense. You have to have social development and you have to protect the environment. You need all three of those things. That's why Roméo LeBlanc was way ahead of his time. He took a sustainable development approach before it was a concept that was broadly made popular in Rio. That's what we need.

We have an act right now that's just focused on conservation. We know where this happened. It happened because of the cuts that were made. There was the fiscal crisis of the government in the mid-1990s, and you had to cut. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans looked at that and said they were just going to focus on conservation and que le diable m'emporte le reste.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have one clarification. You said that fishers have lost ground as the department has focused on different areas. I think you're using that comment in relation to the owner-operator policy, where there are things going on that are not being enforced by DFO. Am I correct in that interpretation?

[Marc Allain]

Absolutely.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you explain that?

[Marc Allain]

We've been working on this for 20 years. We had these really good policies saying that the fishing licences go to the individuals and that the individuals have to fish them themselves and live in coastal communities. We need that for the social and economic development of our coastal communities. It hasn't been working. People have been finding workarounds. We come up with all kinds of measures with the department that are on the policy side of things. They're not in the regulations or the legislation, and they don't work.

I was talking to the person in the department responsible for this last week, and he said they'd devised a Rube Goldberg machine to deal with this, and I didn't know what a Rube Goldberg machine was.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What is it?