Evidence of meeting #40 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 habitat.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Ms. Gaertner, can you tell me how many meetings—
4:45 p.m.
First Nations Fisheries Council
I also want to note that at the time of those meetings, the funding had not been put in place. The first nations had no opportunity to review ahead of time and seek the advice they would need on amendments to the Fisheries Act. They were basically receiving information from DFO and needing to go back and consider it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Okay.
Can you tell me whether the First Nations Fisheries Council has been consulted with respect to the government's move to marine protected areas and the increase to hit their international targets of 5% in 2017 and 10% in 2020?
4:45 p.m.
First Nations Fisheries Council
The First Nations Fisheries Council will have been informed about those steps, but they will not have been consulted. The first nations fisheries organizations are not rights and title holders. They provide capacity and assist first nations in considering these matters, but they're not a body that does the actual consultation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Okay, perfect.
This question is for Mr. Schindler.
We have also heard over the course of the testimony that there is perhaps too much ministerial oversight. In your testimony today, are you of the mind that there should be ministerial oversight or no ministerial oversight?
4:45 p.m.
Killam Memorial Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
My mind is that the science should be done with strictly scientific oversight and the science passed on to the minister, so that it's crystal clear where and why the decisions are made. Certainly, the elected minister should have the final oversight, but the taxpayer should be sure of where the decision is coming from.
I've often seen bad decisions passed off as bad science when anyone who knew the science knew that was total nonsense.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
My next question is for the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.
We've heard varying testimonies from different sides, and I think all are measured. However, we have heard that the 2012 changes have allowed industry to go—I guess I'll have to use this term—willy-nilly or amok, and it made it easier for projects to proceed.
Would your testimony today be that it was the changes in 2012 that made it easier for your membership to get their projects approved, or was it status quo and perhaps even a little more onerous?
4:50 p.m.
Member, Vice-President, Environment and Sustainability, Sabina Gold and Silver Corp., Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Thank you for that question.
There was a change in the process between 2012 and currently. The fact is that previously there were letters of advice utilized. That was a process through Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Currently, we use our own self-assessment and a request for review process.
In the end, the process has streamlined; the mitigation has not changed. Our membership still utilizes operational statements and previous mitigation that would be either general to the industry or site specific. There haven't been changes in mitigation, but process has changed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
I'm afraid that's time.
We'll move to Mr. Donnelly for seven minutes.
December 7th, 2016 / 4:50 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you to all of our witnesses for providing testimony on the Fisheries Act review. It's extremely helpful.
I will just recommend to everyone who has presented here to submit your recommendations in writing to the committee if you haven't already done that. It will ensure that we have all those recommendations in writing, so please send those to us.
Ms. Gaertner, I wanted to add that I did make recommendations to this committee on a number of issues. One was in terms of travelling. I thought this committee should have travelled to the coasts to hear from witnesses. I also suggested that we expand the time frame. It's a very tight window for us to hear from witnesses and produce a report.
We've essentially heard, I think, from 40 or 50 witnesses. I know there were many more, including a number of first nations. I only got a chance to raise a few, the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, the Heiltsuk Nation, and the First Nations Fisheries Council who wrote to this committee regarding speaking to us. We have only a set number of witnesses. We have heard from a number of excellent witnesses so far, but I know, and I take your point, that there are many other first nations who wanted to present to the committee directly. I find that it is unfortunate that we are under a compressed time frame, and we aren't able to hear from many more on such an important topic as the Fisheries Act. Unfortunately, I lost that battle.
Dr. Schindler, in your opinion, did the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act increase or reduce protections for fish habitat?
4:50 p.m.
Killam Memorial Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
It's pretty clear that they reduced the protections for fish habitat.
4:50 p.m.
Killam Memorial Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I don't think, however, to date, you would expect to see any effect. One of the reasons was mentioned earlier. If you don't have people in the field to observe, you're not going to see any effect by definition.
Number two is that only a few years have gone by. Most large projects require several years to develop, and if they're bad projects, they probably require several more to have an effect on fisheries.
I think it's very timely to get in and reconsider and hopefully restore biologically sensible bases for the Fisheries Act now before any significant damage is done.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Dr. Schindler.
You also mentioned a number of projects that have already been essentially approved under the current Fisheries Act, so your point is well taken.
I will now turn to Ms. Morten.
Everybody has provided very good testimony, by the way. It's been very helpful, and we've heard the recommendations.
One additional issue that has come up is the cumulative impacts for streams and watersheds, and also the wild salmon policy as it relates. We heard about the importance of regulations and not having them.
Could you comment both on cumulative impacts, and how that's tied to the Fisheries Act and/or the wild salmon policy?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation
An impact is a hard one to do when you don't know what's going on in the area. One of the things that they talk about is what changed in things. We had a harmful alteration, in my mind, in that Fisheries used to be with our municipality to work on different projects. I was counting fish one day and came around the corner and found an excavator in the creek digging out the gravel. I was counting salmon, and they were excavating gravel. It's a timing issue. Those kinds of cumulative effects would not even be known had I not been out walking with my friends counting salmon that day. We wouldn't have known that that was going on.
With the wild salmon policy—
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm sorry. If I could just add, that's probably enforcement and having enough resources for the department to be able to monitor what's going on.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation
If it's not going to cause serious harm to fish, it's hard to say that it needs to be enforced.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation
It was a timing issue with the municipality no longer working with the department to realize there were pink salmon in the channel at that time. It was just a timing issue. They wanted to wait until the children went back to school rather than pay attention to the Fisheries Act. It's a bit of a difference. If you don't know when these things are happening, it's hard to determine cumulative effects, but we do see the effects on the waterways and on the fisheries as we count fish coming back, as well as on the water with their levels either going up or down.
The other thing is that the wild salmon policy is up for review and it is just going through the process now. The department is going around the province asking about the renewal of the wild salmon policy and where it fits in with the new Fisheries Act.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Maybe I could ask the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board representatives to comment.
You used the term “regressive changes” with respect to the Fisheries Act and you outlined some concerns about still waiting for the complementary regulations. Do you want to expand on that a little bit?
4:55 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
I could say in respect of the regulations that if you're in a jurisdiction like Nunavut and you are managing on the basis of what went on on the northwest coast in the B.C. area, and you take into consideration the Atlantic regulations pertaining to the act, it's near impossible to have a practical application of the act when you don't have “made in Nunavut” regulations or regulations made for any other jurisdiction. That's why I said it's critical to supplement the act with appropriate regulations.