Evidence of meeting #35 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fisheries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Of course, when you begin fencing cattle back from water, all of a sudden you see productivity and herd health improve, so you're getting a benefit on the farm side and a benefit on the environmental side.
The short answer is that, if you really want to get an argument going with a farmer, come in with a clipboard and a bunch of regulations that you're going to enforce.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I have to do some of that enforcement right now. I apologize, sir.
Mr. Donnelly, you have seven minutes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and providing testimony on the Fisheries Act review.
I would encourage all witnesses to submit your recommendations in writing to the committee, if you haven't already done, to make sure we get those.
Chief Chamberlin, thank you for providing your remarks.
From what I have, and I'm sure I missed a few, you spoke about the importance of a watershed perspective, and revisiting the relationship with first nations regarding these changes and a proper engagement. You mentioned the minister's mandate letter. You spoke about reinstating the changes to habitat protection and bringing those back now. You spoke about defining what an aboriginal fish is, pursuing co-management with first nations, the need for healthy and abundant ecosystems, and embracing the principles of Cohen. You also mentioned putting salmon farms on land.
My first question is, why do you feel so strongly about the past changes to the Fisheries Act?
4:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
The changes I've seen are consistent with the previous government's approach to minimizing anything to do with aboriginal rights and title. They used the majority government that they had to push through their perspective and vision for Canada, and it really did not reflect the honour of the crown, which was directed to them by the Supreme Court of Canada.
When I think of the changes that were made here, they are inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada. When they changed or added “for sale, trade or barter” to the commercial definition found in the new Fisheries Act, that's entirely inconsistent with the Gladstone case of 1996, the Ahousaht Indian Band case of 2011, and the Van der Peet case of 1996, which clearly articulated for the government that first nations have always enjoyed a barter system with our foods that we have to trade. There are grease trails that our people have participated in, and so on.
In my opening remarks I spoke about the need and the reliance of our people upon traditional foods. When the government decided to take a different view and tried to redefine it, and move it away from a place where it could actually be protected by some legislation, that really hit a nerve with first nations people.
Our primary concern has always been the health and abundance of wild salmon in British Columbia, as well as halibut, cod, and everything else. When we start tinkering with something that is so profoundly important to our peoples, we will take issue. We will take a stand, and we will not be moved from that position.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
You gave a number of concerns and recommendations in your testimony. If you had to choose your top three, what would those three be?
4:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
My top three would be the reinstatement of the HADD permits. That's very critical for the proper functioning of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, bringing it back to its initial focus of not just managing fisheries that perhaps have a commercial aspect but actually looking out for the environment and all the waterways of British Columbia and Canada. I know Canadians would expect the government to do such a thing.
My second recommendation would be that the aquaculture industry of British Columbia, the fish farms, be moved into a Canadian environmental assessment stream. A mining operation might have a camp, a place to work on their machinery, a place where they dig, a place where they prepare, and a place where they ship. One company does all of this, and it triggers off the need for an environmental assessment. Well, a company operating in our first nations territory has a grow-out place, a smolt location, and a middle-growth area. You have these four or five different farms in one small region that are actually one piece of a greater company's efforts, yet they escape the environmental assessment.
When we start to turn our attention to that, we really need to come to an understanding not only of the cumulative impacts to the benthic environment of the ocean but of the cumulative impacts on migratory salmon. I say that as a result of what the Cohen commission spoke about and the lack of science, and so forth.
The last recommendation would be to move the fish farms onto land. We need to get on with closed containment. I've met with Minister LeBlanc a number of times, and previous to that, with Minister Tootoo, and I asked, “Why is Canada afraid to be a world leader? Where is the ingenuity that built this country, and why are we not putting our best and brightest minds to take the lead globally on this?” I really and truly believe we have the ability, and we have the examples around Canada that can lead us down that road, so that we can really set the stage for this evolution of an industry.
Every other industry has evolved in Canada and the world. Logging has changed. Mining has changed. Oil and gas has changed. It's time for the open net-cage fish farms to change, so that we can remove that level of uncertainty and impacts with which people have issues. I am clearly understanding the impacts that have happened in our territories, and it's time that we really safeguard our wild salmon.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you very much, Chief Chamberlin.
Dr. Fuller, you gave nine very clear recommendations. I have just a minute left. Could you talk about one of those, which was your fourth one on pesticide use, and could you mention or clarify for us how you see legalizing that, or in the Fisheries Act how that becomes clearer? What do you want to see in the Fisheries Act that changes or modernizes the act?
4:25 p.m.
Senior Marine Conservation Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre
The agricultural activity regulations came into force a year ago this past August, as I understand it. There was an outcry at the time when they were being developed. I think 123 scientists from across Canada signed a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Our understanding of why the pesticides regulations were changed was that Environment and Climate Change Canada charged an Atlantic Canada company for illegally using pesticides. This was after there had already been a settlement around pesticide use that killed a significant amount of lobster.
One of the issues that, I think, the department should get a legal opinion on is the increasing pesticide use, which is happening because there's a growing sea lice problem in Atlantic Canada, and whether it's against the London protocol or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, under the disposal at sea regulations.
What, in many cases in other industries, from sewage to agriculture, we're trying to limit is the number of toxins that are going into our environment. We're now authorizing more toxins to go into the marine environment. From a biological perspective, a sea lice is the same thing as a lobster. It's a crustacean. There are impacts. The DFO toxicology lab when it was working—there's no longer a DFO toxicology lab in St. Andrews—found there were lethal effects from sea lice treatments on lobsters.
I would say we have lost protections through the aquaculture activity regulations, particularly on pesticides.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You're done. Thank you for that.
Mr. Morrissey, you have seven minutes, please.
November 21st, 2016 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
My question is to Mr. Bonnett.
You state there were challenges before the changes were made to the act. Could you expand a bit on that?
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
The challenges were mostly bureaucratic. Before the act was changed, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was involved with almost every drain maintenance operation that was going on. There was bureaucratic red tape you had to go through, not only with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but also likely with the local conservation authority. Depending on the province, there might be provincial engagement, as well. When you go to maintain these drains, quite often you have a very limited time window to do that during the summer, when you can do the least damage to the drain.
What was creating the frustration was that the paperwork was taking so much time to get the maintenance done that quite often drain maintenance would be delayed for a year or two. Then, all of a sudden, you have problems with lost productivity at the farm level. The main thing was the bureaucratic holdups on getting the approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
It's improved. There are still some challenges when you have multiple jurisdictions working on that. It varies very much depending on which area you are in. It has improved dramatically from what it was.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Protection can be enhanced. I think what you're referring to is related to the outcomes statement. It's taking a look at what the outcome is. That's putting a whole package of things together like incentive programs, set-asides, ecological goods and services, and those types of things, as opposed to a regulatory framework.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
My riding, like Mr. Sopuck's, is heavy agriculture, and it has a very strong aquaculture industry, as well, occupying inland rivers and estuaries across the riding. I've witnessed over the past number of years significant improvements in farming practices in Prince Edward Island. It's very positive in that way.
I'm going to take you to your comments on the distinction between the man-made waterways and the natural habitat. Am I correct, because I'm new to this committee, that the act was treating both the same?
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
They were using the same types of rules on every waterway.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay. That doesn't seem practical.
Ms. Fuller, you stated DFO was not adequately protecting fish habitat. A number of comments have been made by a number of witnesses that not only were the changes to the act detrimental to protecting fish habitat, but at the same time the department has had significant reduction in staffing in key areas and that the resources were no longer there to protect habitat.
Could you expand on that for me, please?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Marine Conservation Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre
We watched the habitat offices go from 63 across the country to 16. I think about 1,900 positions in DFO were lost across the board—not just habitat. We no longer have a habitat branch. There's fisheries protection but there's no habitat branch anymore. I have friends who are scientists, who are habitat managers and work with local groups and with proponents to restore fish habitat. When there's an authorization, how do we make sure that conservation groups.... I'm always amazed by the number of streamkeeper groups or restoration groups across this country, individuals and volunteers, that get involved in fish habitat protection and restoration. Nobody answers the phone at DFO, in many cases, anymore.
