Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have 10 seconds, so I think that will be it.

Ms. Jordan, you have five minutes.

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

I would like to thank all the witnesses who have appeared here today for their testimony.

With regard to the study, this is only one way that the department is looking at the revisions to the Fisheries Act. I really appreciated hearing from the witnesses. We've at least listened to witnesses. We've heard from people and not brought in legislation in an omnibus bill.

Mr. Pickard and Ms. Williams, could you please walk me through, quickly if possible, how that self-assessment process works?

[Matthew Pickard]

Essentially a self-assessment is determining what activities are planned on site, utilizing general mitigation, which can come off the DFO website or off more standard mitigation that is used for similar projects, then looking at mitigation specific to your location, your activity, fish in the area, habitat. Following that, you would ensure that information is available should DFO request it. Ensure that the mitigation you've identified is in place. That's the process, essentially.

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

DFO doesn't have to see that process before you go ahead with whatever project you're working on? Is it available if they ask for it?

[Matthew Pickard]

That's correct. It's available, should they ask for it, much in line with how the standard operational procedure statements were utilized previously.

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

Has anyone from DFO ever asked you for a self-assessment? Have they ever asked to see any of your project self-assessments?

[Matthew Pickard]

For my specific projects, no, but within the exploration industry, yes, they have.

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

Thank you.

My next questions are for Ms. Morten.

You said you've been with your organization now for quite some time. With regard to the changes that were made to the Fisheries Act in 2012, were you asked about the changes and how they would affect your habitat, your studies, your work? Did anyone from DFO contact you and tell you what they were considering changing in the Fisheries Act and ask how it will affect you?

[Zo Ann Morten]

I think it came as a surprise to most people.

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

The other question I have is with regard to defining and definition. We've heard here today about serious harm to fish. How do you define that? How do you define what is serious harm? We did have one witness who appeared earlier who said it would be like his mother saying, “Don't hurt your sister.” How do you define what that means? What do you see as serious harm to fish?

[Zo Ann Morten]

I think Dr. Kristi Miller brought up the best points on that one, about how hard that is to determine. Just having stress factors within our lives and within fisheries' lives causes them to go through a period of not being able to maybe transfer from a freshwater fish to a saltwater fish.

It's something such as Beaver Creek in Stanley Park. The water levels there go up to 27° in the summer time. It's lovely to swim in, but not so good for fish. It makes it so their internal bodies don't change over and they have a difficult time changing. Instead of keeping salts in their bodies, they expel salts. They go through quite a process in smoltification. It's those kinds of struggles that they go through because of stressors that happen. Even something as simple as water quality changes can cause stress that makes them unable to go to their next stage in life.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have one minute.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This question is for Ms. Gaertner from the First Nations Fisheries Council. You had said something about focusing on constitutional recommendations. Could you expand on that a little, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Sorry, you have 30 seconds.

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

I don't think she can hear me, Mr. Chair.

[Brenda Gaertner]

I did hear you. I'm just trying to figure out my response.

I do want you to focus on constitutional obligations, and those obligations include obligations to first nations under section 35 protected fisheries rights. Under the Fisheries Act, the minister should be charged with exercising his discretion in a manner that meets the requirements of the Fisheries Act and meets the requirements of subsection 35(1) of our Constitution as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those kinds of clarities under the Fisheries Act would be useful.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Doherty for five minutes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I want to apologize to our witnesses. Obviously, you are hearing some very partisan comments back and forth. You are also hearing some frustration from the opposition side where we feel that this process has been rushed, and we wanted, indeed, to have a very inclusive consultation and review from coast to coast to coast in looking at our first nations, our traditional fisheries, as well as our commercial fisheries on both sides of our country. Again, I do want to apologize. I think you've heard from Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Arnold, and earlier me, our frustration is that this is a rushed process.

Ms. Gaertner, I again apologize that we seem to have been cutting you off. To Mr. Donnelly's comment, there have been a number of first nations groups, as well as industry and commercial groups, that have not had the opportunity to appear before this committee. I do apologize for the partisanship that you are seeing and experiencing. I want to once again reaffirm that this is very important to all sides, and we are taking this very seriously. Unfortunately, we have very little time to do this, now that I have used two minutes of my time to make some soapbox comments.

I'll go back to our friends with the Prospectors and Developers Association. Our colleague across the way, in her leading questions, was trying to get you, in your testimony, I believe, Mr. Pickard, to say that somehow the changes in 2012 weakened the Fisheries Act and made it easier for industry to do business. I want to once again give you an opportunity because I think you were cut off. You started to say that it was much the same as the operational statements in the previous Fisheries Act. Can you elaborate on that, please?

[Matthew Pickard]

Yes, thank you.

Within the exploration and prospecting community, the mitigation used for any potential impact to fish or fish habitat, whether that be commercial, aboriginal, recreational, or otherwise, has remained very much the same. There isn't a variation. We still use the standards coming out of the previously utilized operational statements. We use mitigation that's appropriate—you've heard it before—for an individual area, whether it be mitigation proposed in B.C. versus Nunavut, which would be very different. Protection levels, in our opinion, remain the same. There is a different process involved within DFO, but protection is the same.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you. That is consistent with what we're hearing from other proponents as well.

Whatever remaining time I have I'll turn over to Mr. Arnold.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I have one question. We probably don't have time to get to everyone, so perhaps I will direct it to Mr. Andrews, and if anyone else wants to chime in, please do.

What we're tasked with here is to develop one act that will cover this entire country from coast to coast to coast. This is a pretty daunting task when we take in the incredible variance of fisheries right across this country.

If you could, in probably 30 seconds, what is the one thing we should focus on in the review of this act?

[Raymond Andrews]

I would think that fish and their habitat, as we've all talked about, is probably key to it all simply because, without the proper protection for those two aspects of the fishery, there isn't any downstream activity pertaining to, as I said earlier, people, communities, and the jurisdictions in which those things are found. That's obviously a focus.

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

Do you think it's possible to cover the entire country in one act?

[Raymond Andrews]

It's been done, but it's difficult.

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

Thank you.