Fisheries Committee on Nov. 14th, 2016

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

Should they have been charged?

[Mark Mattson]

You know what? I don't know the facts of the case. Under the old Fisheries Act, if there was a point source and somebody, through due diligence, should have been prepared to not allow that to go into the river and should have expected that there would be fisheries death, the way it is currently is that it's upon those who caused the damage to prove that they took all reasonable action and all reasonable steps to prevent it. If they didn't, it can go to sentencing. We've seen sentencing of one dollar, but currently the act is, I think, up to a million dollars a day and six months in jail.

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

Of course, I'm surprised you don't realize that any runoff from agricultural areas that's non-point source pollution is clearly not point source.

Regarding the old Fisheries Act, I'd like to talk—

[Mark Mattson]

That's why you need proper land use planning. You need to work hard to ensure that what you are putting on the field doesn't run off. That's exactly what the Fisheries Act is intended to fix, and it was, under the old act.

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

You tell the potato industry in P.E.I. that it is a very important part of the economy. Those of us on this side protect agriculture.

I'd like to ask a question of MAC and Ms. Laurie-Lean. In the testimony, when we were going through the act, Mr. Kevin Stringer talked about how they were having 12,500 referrals per year under the old Fisheries Act. He was implying that they were clearly swamped. Every little dock and every small walkway was considered a referral under the Fisheries Act. They were completely swamped.

Do you think they would have been able to deal with 12,500 referrals a year, year in and year out?

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

I don't know. We would not be familiar with their internal operations.

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

It's just that, when we asked that.... The Fisheries Act was interpreted, at the time, to mean every single little activity near or close to a water body. That's how we ended up with an unmanageable set-up.

I'll go back to Mr. Mattson.

You were kind of scathing about provincial jurisdiction and provinces taking a role in fisheries conservation. I'm from Manitoba, and I clearly don't want somebody from across the country to have a say in how fisheries in Manitoba are allocated.

Don't you think that provinces should have the final say in how fisheries in their jurisdictions are managed?

[Mark Mattson]

Let me be very clear, sir. This is about Canadians and people. This is a quasi-criminal statute that protects every Canadian. There is nobody who should be ignored just because there are so many people having—

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

I wasn't ignoring anybody. Nobody is ignoring anybody.

[Mark Mattson]

—deleterious substances put into their water, destroying their swimmable water, or destroying fisheries and fish habitat. You shouldn't claim that there is too much red tape to deal with those people's voices. It's very important that this quasi-criminal statute protect every Canadian, whether they are in Manitoba, Ontario, or B.C., and no province should be able to put forward its own exemptions such that it would take away the right to fishable waters.

This legislation was put in place in the early 1970s as a result of many damages that went on in the 1950s and 1960s. We learned from it. The federal level had powers, criminal and fisheries. They joined the two together to create sections 35 and 36. It's not the time, in 2016, to undermine that with arguments about jurisdiction. This act protects every Canadian and gives everyone the right to clean fisheries. There is no fishery, no matter how small the pond or how big the ocean, that is exempt from this act. I wouldn't want it to be so.

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

This is a clear case of winning the argument by definition, if I've ever seen it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

As entertaining as that may have been, I have to cut it off there.

I'm going to go to Mr. Finnigan now. Sir, you have five minutes. Please proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask my question in French.

Mr. Allain, in the Atlantic provinces, and in my riding in particular, I think things are going fairly well for independent fisherman. It seems to be going well. They each have their boat and everything is going well.

Can you give me a specific example to illustrate that the policy is not working? Why should that be included in a law?

[Marc Allain]

Thank you, Mr. Finnigan. That is a very good question.

The fisheries are going well right now in the Atlantic provinces. This is especially true because of shellfish, lobster in particular. Lobster landings have doubled in the past 10 years and the price has risen. This is good for everyone, but not everyone is benefiting equally. If you ask fishermen in your riding, they will say landings have increased by 30%, 40% or 50%, or perhaps they have even doubled.

In other areas, such as Mr. Gawn's area, landings have increased even more. That is where the problem is. Where the fisheries are the most lucrative, companies are interested, and not only Canadian companies. There are also foreign investors. There are newspaper ads now to buy lobster licenses in zones 33, 34 and 35. These fishing areas are all in Nova Scotia, a province that accounts for 40% or 50% of all lobster landings in Canada.

[Graeme Gawn]

It is 60% in fact.

[Marc Allain]

That is the target. Agreements are used to take control of licenses that are supposed to be for individuals who are supposed to have full control. Secret agreements are used to reap the benefits of the licenses. This is happening in southwestern Nova Scotia, in southwestern New Brunswick, in the Bay of Fundy and in Newfoundland, in the crab fishery.

We provide evidence of this to the department. We tell officials where to look, we tell them that we know the source of the problem, and that we know people and businesses who are circumventing the rules.

We are talking about criminal acts. It is like a Rube Goldberg machine. If there is a control agreement, that is a criminal offence under the Fisheries Act. People say there are no agreements and that all fishermen must sign a statement attesting that they do not operate under a control agreement, but we know they do.

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

Thank you, Mr. Allain.

[Marc Allain]

The situation is not the same everywhere, though. In your riding, there are people and investors who buy lobster licenses. This is not as serious as in the other speaker's area and elsewhere, but it is happening in your riding also. This problem must be checked before it spreads and what is happening in his area also spreads to yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Allain.

Mr. Gawn, you spoke about the damage that aquaculture does to many species of fish in our environment. Are you opposed to all aquaculture, if we're talking about the oyster industry and all that? Do you have any issues with some of the other forms of aquaculture?

[Graeme Gawn]

As I said in my comments, all of these projects we're not opposing. We're just demanding proper oversight and environmental assessments and responsible ways of carrying out these projects, whether it's oil or gas or any kind of aquaculture that's happening in our oceans.

First and foremost, we have to protect the wild fisheries. The number of jobs and the revenue coming into our economy from that for the last hundreds and hundreds of years cannot be risked for some pie-in-the-sky scheme that may damage that.

We're not opposing these projects. We're opposing the fact that they're allowed to write their own rules when it comes to the environment and the habitat of fish.

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

Thank you.

Going back to Ms. Hendriks with the World Wildlife Fund, there was a question asked, and I think you never had a chance to answer. There was an assertion made that WWF doesn't want the minister to make management decisions.

Could you elaborate and clarify your organization's position on that view?

[Elizabeth Hendriks]

Sure. I think at this point there need to be some constraints around ministerial powers. I think evidence-based decision-making shouldn't be swayed by politics, and there are ways to ensure, within the act, that we are bringing the best science to the table to make decisions across the country.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Donnelly for three minutes, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have three minutes, so not a lot of time. I think we'll have another round and some more time.

I would ask all of you to submit your recommendations to the committee so that the committee captures all of what you have to offer in terms of the changes to the Fisheries Act and what is being consulted on here.

However, if you have to provide your top priority, what would your top priority be, of all the recommendations that you've given?

I'm going to start with the independent fishermen.