Fisheries Committee on Nov. 30th, 2016

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

So it's then a matter that the new pumps are fish-friendly?

[Lina Azeez]

That is the recommendation we are putting forward, that from now on—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Do they exist?

[Lina Azeez]

There are fish-friendly pump stations. There's one just off the Coquitlam. I was unable to get any more information on other fish-friendly pump stations in the Lower Mainland, but the technology does exist, yes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Swanson, with respect to the changes that were made, a lot of the impetus came from rural areas in the prairies, especially rural Saskatchewan municipalities, because they were concerned about the holdup of Public Works, etc., due to what they thought were onerous conditions and very low-threshold triggers for complete environmental reviews. We've heard from many people, though, who don't necessarily share your view, that things should just exactly stay the same.

Keeping in mind the interest of those people who are proceeding with Public Works—Manitoba Hydro, I'm sure, being one—what does represent a compromise, a good balance, that meets the concerns of a lot of people we've heard from but also, of course, retains what many would consider to be the best aspects of the changes that were made?

[Gary Swanson]

To respond to the comment about keeping it exactly the same, what we're saying is that it's the application, not the wording. To that point, if there were an efficient process that integrated the fisheries management objectives with the provincial fisheries management agency inputs earlier, that would bring a logic to the process that was more efficient.

Foundationally, if it were broadly understood—I believe it is understood, and it has been defined in the court cases—that the purview of the Fisheries Act application is at a fishery or a fish population level, those two pieces together would bring a logic that, in concert with a rededication to freshwater ecosystem research, would provide the process efficiencies that would bring more of a science perspective to it as well. By integrating the provincial fisheries management agency, you bring in years of experience in regional and district offices, whereas fish habitat biologists located in a head office somewhere wouldn't have the same experience, the same local knowledge and information.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll go back to you, Dr. Miller-Saunders. A point that has been made and a concern that has been raised is that when we define fisheries protection, some people aren't convinced that it includes habitat. Is that your reflection as well?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Not necessarily. I'm not a habitat biologist, so I can't really speak too much to that. I have heard some of the discussion about this.

My concern is more that it's a bit of a slippery slope. If we start to have a value judgment on whatever stocks and species are the most abundant in supporting the greatest fisheries today and more or less ignore or don't provide the same level of protection to stocks and species that may not be supporting fisheries today but may support fisheries tomorrow, we may not have some of those opportunities in the future. I'm not really speaking to habitat, however.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hardie.

We now go to the official opposition for questions.

Mr. Sopuck, you have seven minutes.

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

Dr. Miller-Saunders, I would beg to differ with you: I think you do have an agenda, and it's an anti-industrial one. I'm quite concerned by civil servants who express policy issues and recommendations. I would remind you that the Auditor General's 2009 report on the fish habitat management program indicated that fish habitat management program actions over 23 years could not be demonstrated to have adequately protected fish habitat and by extension the fisheries. So the Auditor General took an objective, unbiased look at the enforcement of the Fisheries Act over 23 years and concluded it had no measurable effect on habitat.

My next question is directed to Gary Swanson of Manitoba Hydro.

You made the point in your presentation that the 1986 policy had a lot more in it than fish habitat. You made the point that the new act just adhered to the 1986 policy. Can you elaborate on what the 1986 policy was and how the new act conforms with what was actually policy in 1986?

[Gary Swanson]

Sure, I can a little bit. Briefly, the policy contained provisions for the implementation of the fish habitat protection program, including the “no net loss” policy. Some of those provisions were essentially that there was a need for integrated management and that there was a need to recognize the other users. I believe the phrase “common sense” was used in the document itself in terms of the approach to be taken to the integration of other users in fisheries management objectives. It spoke to the important supporting role that the fish habitat management program played in respect of fisheries management objectives. It also talked about the need for supportive ecosystem science and the state of the science and the issues there.

It also referenced very similar wording to the “contributing and supporting fish species” concept. It made that context and it referenced fisheries again. I think the issue is around the application. It's around the policy and a logic to the policy and the process. It's not new ideas, it's....

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

To Ms. Jackson from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, we heard from one of your colleagues, Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Your testimony and his were very congruent. He talked about the experience that many farmers had with the Fisheries Act, which was not positive—bureaucratic delays, inconsistent enforcement, and so on and so forth. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's in the testimony.

Did the cattle industry have the same experience that Mr. Bonnett outlined?

[Fawn Jackson]

Yes, I think there have been various experiences across Canada due to differences in implementation or relationships, perhaps. That's why we say it's very important to have the appropriate regulations, the reporting, the cost of implementation, the penalties, and the people who are interacting with them in a consistent manner. Those are all really important considerations when working with farmers and ranchers across Canada.

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

Mr. Bonnett also talked about the need for incentive programs and co-operative conservation programs. We discussed the cows and fish program. Would you suggest that if we can do it in a revised Fisheries Act, we include a section on, perhaps, private land conservation being guided largely by the provision of incentives and co-operative programs rather than regulation? Is that an approach you would support?

[Fawn Jackson]

Yes, we absolutely see that stewardship is an excellent way to interact with agriculture producers across Canada. Of course, we have various landscapes, so focusing on the outcomes that we would like to achieve rather than on the specific practice that we would like to see is really important.

I do think there is a very large opportunity to utilize ecosystem service programs with agriculture producers across Canada to achieve our shared conservation outcomes.

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

Mr. Swanson, you made a point that the Fisheries Act is a resource management act to protect fisheries and is guided by the provincial management of quote-unquote property. There's a very large provincial role that we really haven't had acknowledged in our hearings so far. Can you elaborate on why the provincial role is so important and why that role needs to be front and centre?

[Gary Swanson]

I like the analogy that I own my backyard but the city has caveats on how big the fence can be. I think the province and Canada have a similar arrangement in terms of the property being the province's and Canada having that overarching responsibility for fisheries sustainability.

The reality is that whatever Canada wants to happen nationally has to happen on provincial crown land in this regard. I also like the saying that you should get on the horse the way it's facing. Use those provincial crown land processes, integrate, and use their experience and knowledge and their delegated responsibility to administer the Fisheries Act.

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

Ms. Azeez, I very much was taken by the first part of your testimony, where you talked about the need for enhancement and rehabilitation of damaged fish habitats. I really appreciate that approach.

In terms of the map you have put in front of us here, you talked about all these works and operations on the Fraser. All of these were done under the old Fisheries Act, I presume.

[Lina Azeez]

Yes, mostly before the 1977 act.

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

But a number were done after the 1977 provisions, I would assume.

[Lina Azeez]

As I said in my presentation, even before or after, a lot of these systems behind dikes have not been considered fish habitat.

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

Right. So it's quite obvious that the old Fisheries Act didn't prevent any of this damage that you outlined.

[Lina Azeez]

Right.

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

So it wasn't adequate.

Just on the positive side again—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Your time is up.