Fisheries Committee on Nov. 28th, 2016

[Stephen Sutton]

I think I would agree with that. I think you have to have the legislation there first, but on the other hand, legislation that has nobody out there to enforce it is not going to do you much good. I do think that you need to have both. There's no question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Minister Crocker.

[Steve Crocker]

Yes, I would concur. Legislation without somebody to enforce it doesn't work. If you look at it, we went from, I think, some 50 offices down to 16, and with a self-policing model. If you're going to have legislation, you need bodies to enforce it. If not, it's not worth having.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have 30 seconds.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thirty seconds? I'll give it up, then, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Arnold, you have three minutes, please.

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

Thank you. I may be splitting my time with Mr. Sopuck.

I'll get back to you, Ms. Venton.

You made reference to, and there has been reference, the authorization or the exemptions allowed by the minister and so on, and about how decisions in terms of harm must be based on science and not be strictly left up to ministerial decision. What would you have to say when social issues come into play, say, regarding flood mitigation or the seal cull? We've heard multiple times, not just in this study, about the impacts that seal populations are having on fish populations. Those decisions possibly have sometimes been made due to social influence rather than science. How would you react to those two specific instances of flood mitigation and seal populations?

[Margot Venton]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be no other considerations in authorizing harm to fish habitat, especially, for example, in those—

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

Yes, I think you did suggest that.

[Margot Venton]

No. What I'm suggesting is that just to be clear what we need to add into the existing very discretionary system are some science-based criteria to guide decision-making. Generally, with respect to flood mitigation and other emergency measures and even in the Species At Risk Act, there are provisions for natural disasters and emergencies. I think those should be written into the act, absolutely. They are extremely rare events relative to the majority of exercise of the discretion—

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

Okay. Can you—

[Margot Venton]

—and they shouldn't be—

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

—narrow your response down to the seal cull or seal management?

[Margot Venton]

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing, so I can't give you a specific example.

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

Are you saying that in that case we should maybe ignore the science and let the social influence take over?

[Margot Venton]

I don't think we should ever ignore science. I'm not suggesting that there are no circumstances in which other factors may be important as a balancing. It's just that at the moment there's nothing that requires the minister or his or her delegates to turn his or her mind to science-based decision-making when making decisions that generally are about protecting living, functioning systems, and those are mostly scientific decisions.

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

Thank you.

If I have any time left, I'll pass it over.

Thank you for your time, everyone. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly, please, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On November 23, 2016, the committee heard from Otto Langer on the definition of “serious harm” in the current act and how it could have affected the Pacific Northwest LNG project. Ms. Venton, I'm going to ask you this question. On Flora Bank, where it was determined to have a low probability of resulting in serious harm to fish and fish habitat, would reinstating HADD to the act lead DFO to a different assessment of the effects of that project on fish and fish habitat?

[Margot Venton]

It's entirely possible. I don't know without looking at the reasoning in more detail. I can't say that they found clearly that it would have harmful alteration or would harmfully disrupt fish habitat, but maybe not lead to serious harm to fish. It depends where that balancing is. I think we've heard that example. I believe it was Mr. Taylor who suggested there are a lot of circumstances where, from a fish perspective, a devastating and harmful impact results from an activity that is temporarily disruptive.

It's possible, yes, that in that case it would meet that threshold, but I couldn't say definitively without looking at the actual full decision.

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

Thanks.

In the few seconds I have remaining, I have a question for Minister Crocker. We talked about a separate aquaculture act. Would you recommend that it be within DFO or in a different ministry such as agriculture?

[Steve Crocker]

That's an interesting question, because there are obviously two sides to that. If you talk to people in the aquaculture industry, they often compare themselves more to the agriculture industry. I guess that decision would be made at a higher power than mine. It's not really something, to be quite honest, that I've given any serious thought to, but I know the industry has. In a lot of cases, the industry does reflect itself more upon the agriculture industry, rather than the fishery.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're actually finishing under time.

I want to thank our guests today: Minister Crocker and Ms. Barlow from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; Dr. Duncan and Dr. Parker from Manitoba Sustainable Development; Ms. Venton from Ecojustice Canada, joining us from Vancouver; Mr. Cusson and Dr. Sutton, from the Atlantic Salmon Federation; and, from Oceans North Canada, Mr. Taylor.

Thank you, everybody. We'll discuss this again. We'll have more witnesses on Wednesday at 3:30. We'll see you then. The meeting is adjourned.