Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2016

[Susanna Fuller]

That's a huge problem because we're not using the resources at hand. Volunteers put hours and weeks of their time into restoring streams. DFO is not there anymore. I think one of the unfortunate parts of that means we can't measure what we've lost, what we've gained, what we've offset. How do we measure that? I think that's an important part of implementing the act, knowing what we've measured.

The fact that we do not have a digital public registry for habitat authorizations blows my mind, quite frankly. We could do it on Google map and that way, it would make the bureaucratic process, the decision-making process, much easier, matching up the stewardship groups so they can work effectively to protect and restore fish habitat. Resourcing is important, but we can also be efficient and effective about it.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

To follow up on Mr. Sopuck's comments, the changes to CEAA he stated have yet to identify any specific area where you could say there was a loss from the act. That's stating that the changes to the act led to loss of habitat protection and that none has been identified.

[Susanna Fuller]

One of the big losses was the lack of CEAA triggers. All of a sudden a whole bunch of projects didn't even have to go through habitat authorization. You're not going to measure those.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Like what?

[Susanna Fuller]

Aquaculture, for example. I think a lot of undertakings at the municipal level don't have to go through authorizations anymore, class authorizations. Nobody's tracking what happens. Nobody's training transportation workers when they're putting in culverts, so you have volunteers trying to look at whether or not the culvert is at the right height so water can go through it.

I work quite closely with the former head of habitat branch, who now works for adopt-a-stream in Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Salmon Association, and they are tearing their hair out because the Department of Transportation in Nova Scotia is putting in culverts without following any instructions on the best practice for fish habitat because nobody has given them instructions.

I think there are many—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Were instructions given before?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, there would have been instructions because you would have had to work with a habitat biologist and an officer to make sure that the contractors understood the instructions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. I appreciate it.

Mr. Arnold, we're into our second round. You have five minutes, please.

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

I'll try to make it quick because I have a lot of questions to go through.

Mr. Bonnett, you talked about enhancement and incentive programs for farmers, and so on. I'm aware of some in my area that have reduced irrigation use to leave more water in the streams.

Can you make any suggestions as to what types of programs or incentives we should possibly look at, and if they might be able to fit into the act somehow?

[Ron Bonnett]

Yes, I think there are a number of different programs.

If you look at the livestock sector, the biggest risk would be to cattle access to streams. There can be incentive programs that look at fencing back from water courses and at getting off-stream watering. There is a lot of new technology there. We just brought in a solar system this summer for providing water to our cattle. Using technology like that works extremely well.

On the irrigation side, a number of things can be looked at. One is not only removing water from streams, but incenting the building of storage areas for water, because we're getting some climatic cycles with periods of excess moisture and then periods when we're heading into a drought situation. Storing water, then, would be another one.

There are also a number of new low water-use technologies, so that you can grow the same crop with not nearly as much irrigation.

There are a number of things such as these that I think would work to incent agriculture to improve operations.

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

Okay, thank you.

I want to make a couple of statements. I don't want to be contradictory, but I think these statements need to be corrected.

One was the statement that only commercial fisheries are protected under the new act. That's not correct. The new act also includes the interests of recreational and first nations fisheries. I want to make sure that's recognized.

Chief Chamberlin, you mentioned first nations and their involvement. I come from a hunting and angling club. We did a lot of stream work. Can you tell me whether you have knowledge of first nations in your area that you're aware of who have been involved in stream enhancement projects or anything like that?

[Chief Robert Chamberlin]

Thank you for your question.

There was a time when DFO provided some resourcing to first nations through the aboriginal fisheries strategy to do things such as stream remediation and habitat work, but this has sadly diminished. It's not available much anymore. This is one of those things for which cutbacks have occurred that have kept first nations from being able to move forward.

I can tell you about one example in our territory. We have a spawning channel in Kakweiken, or what people like to refer to as Thompson Sound. It was horribly designed at the outset, but there are no resources for redesigning the intake for the water there. It would be a significant contributor to the salmon in our territories, but the resources have all but disappeared during the previous government's term.

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

That will bring me back to another comment I'd like to make. I said that I come from a fishing and hunting and angling club. We did a lot of stream work. From first-hand knowledge, I can say that we pulled away from that because of the bureaucracy that was involved. It would take us a year to a year and a half to go through an application, with the system that was there, to do a day's work in a stream. Honestly, our leaders simply had had enough. They quit because of the bureaucracy that was involved. It just took too long to work through the existing system.

There need to be changes there. We didn't have the resources. We were more than happy to get into the stream and do the work. We'd get dozens of people out initially, but it got to the point that we couldn't get one person to apply for the permit and go through the bureaucracy.

My next question is for Ms. Fuller. You mentioned that some aspects of the recent changes improved the act. Could you elaborate a little further on that, please?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, I think the addition of “activities” is good.

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

Pardon me?

[Susanna Fuller]

The addition of “activities” in “works, undertakings or activities”, that is positive and should stay.

The other part about making the letters of advice enforceable is also good. Those two things are good changes and should stay.

To respond to your comment about the difficulty in doing restorations, one thing we advised back in 2010 was that, with conservation groups and environmental groups, there be an actual letter of advice for restoration activities, so that they could happen much more quickly.

I think there are many regulatory and process-based things that could be more efficient and would address many of the challenges under the previous act.

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

Good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Ms. Jordan, you have five minutes, please.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today. It has been very interesting.

First of all, we heard from Chief Chamberlin and Ms. Fuller that there was limited consultation, or none, with regard to the changes that were brought in. Can you tell me, was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture consulted when the fisheries habitat protections were changed?

[Ron Bonnett]

We were notified that the changes were taking place and asked whether we had any specific recommendations under the drainage works, but I'm not so much sure it was an invitation as we were knocking on a lot of people's doors at the time, because of the bureaucracy that was involved in getting the approvals through. It was becoming a very big financial issue for a lot of our farmers.

I'm not so sure it was a formal consultation process as much as it was that I and a number of MPs were knocking on their doors as often as we possibly could because it was a concern that we felt needed to be addressed.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'll go to Ms. Fuller. You said to reinstate the lost protections. Now, having heard what Mr. Bonnett says, do you see where there's a bit of a problem? Is there a way that we could change it to bring back lost protections, yet still address the concerns that agriculture has with regard to drainage and their becoming an actual protected area?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, absolutely. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

The primary part of my particular recommendation on HADD is that there is important case law that has been established. Without HADD we lose the application of that case law, and all that hard work that Canadians went through to get the fisheries law upheld.

I think absolutely we can reinstate the lost protections and work with various industries and industry organizations and stakeholders to make sure that the outcome of habitat protection is achieved. A lot of that happens with the regulations and the process, but the law should actually be reinstated.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

One of the things that we've heard in almost every study that we've done since we started this committee a year ago is that the loss of science and the loss of enforcement have been key drivers in a lot of the problems that DFO is facing.

We've already started to work towards reinstating some of the science. With regard to enforcement, where do you see the priority? Now, you work marine. We've heard from the marine but we've also heard from the habitat. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts would be on where the priority should be.

[Susanna Fuller]

I would say on major projects there needs to be enforcement. I think where there's an authorization that we know has been given and there are offsets, I think there needs to be checking in on that at the field officer level. A lot can be done by improving best practices and what is required for fish habitat protection. I also think that if there are a few fines that actually punish for loss of fish habitat, that improves compliance significantly.

I would probably look at this. Where are the greatest threats to fish habitat? What are the projects currently happening there? Are we enforcing our habitat protection provisions? I think that enforcement officers would actually be able to tell you best, those who still exist, where they know that they don't have any capacity.

I know in Nova Scotia, as you probably well do, that people were using neighbourhood watch systems, because there was no fisheries officer, anywhere in the entire Guysborough county, as an example. Again, I think that is something that can be done collaboratively, too, with conservation and protection, because they understand where they have gaps.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Chief Chamberlin, thank you so much for your testimony. I found it extremely interesting. Does your organization represent all first nations in B.C.?