Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2016

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Over the past number of weeks, we've heard from a broad range of witnesses on two sides of the spectrum: those that develop and those that participate in the fishery and protect the fishery. Their views were different, but I was impressed with the degree of knowledge and the depth of knowledge and passion that everybody presented. On that, I have a specific question for Dr. Schindler and to Ms. Morten.

A question that came up numerous times, and I want your opinions on it, was whether man-made habitat should be defined and enforced the same way natural habitat is. My second part of that question would be that there appeared to be a lot of comments that parts of the act are not clear. One area I'll refer to is where it says “death of fish”. Is it one fish, or should it be more than one fish? Could both of you comment on those parts?

[Dr. David Schindler]

I would say that if a man-made habitat proves to be equal to the natural habitat, and in my experience it's often permitted by at least the old Fisheries Act as a replacement for habitat that cannot be otherwise restored, such as in the dewatering of lakes, then it should be permitted. I would counter that by saying, though, that my experience is that even habitats designed by DFO scientists were often pretty inadequate.

With respect to fish, I think the concern should be the long-term future of fish populations. I don't think the death of individual fish is of concern here. In my view, the mandate of the Fisheries Act and this committee is to see that it is truly sustainable, that my grandchildren can come back and expect to rely on the same degree of fisheries for food, or recreation, or subsistence that we can today. There are other acts, presumably, that will counter that. This is not the mining act. It is not the agriculture act. Your charge, in my view, is to see that our fisheries are sustainable, whatever it takes.

[Zo Ann Morten]

It depends on what the function of the water was prior to man taking account. If it's a dug-out, it's not attached to anything, and it's just full of water, of course that wouldn't be anything to do with the Fisheries Act. But if you've actually channelled a functioning stream and turned it into an irrigation ditch or a drainage ditch, that would of course need to be covered under the Fisheries Act.

Think of the man-made end of things as well. I'd have to say “person-made”, because I actually made a fish-bearing stream, and yes, I would like it to have the protection of the Fisheries Act. We changed a leachate ditch in the District of North Vancouver from a drainage ditch that took the leachate to Lynn Creek to a fish-bearing stream, and I would like to have that under protection. That was the intent of it.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

On the definition of fish or fishery, this has come up as an ambiguity in what we've been told. The harm where you would be charged, is it the death of one fish or multiple?

[Zo Ann Morten]

That's very tricky, and it's funny that you should say that, because I actually asked that question when I found out about the duty to report.

I was at a meeting and I was a bit terrified, because the day before, I had killed a fish. We were digging out our man-made structure that is designed for fish. We had done all the trapping. We had done everything we could to remove the fish. What on earth a chum salmon was doing there in the middle of the summer, I have no idea, but we took this fish and it went in the back of the dump truck, and I didn't know about the duty to report.

I was with Fisheries and I said that I would report it. They asked if I was sure that it died. I said, “Yes. I dug it out. I put it in the back of a dump truck. I dumped it in the landfill. I'm sure it's dead.” I still don't know what it was doing there. They asked if it was one fish, and I said, “Yes.” They said, “Don't worry about one fish.” I asked, “What if it were two? Do I worry about two? What if it were three? What is that magic number?” There wasn't one.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's a good point.

[Zo Ann Morten]

That was the trick. There wasn't one, because these were actually hatchery fish. I run a small enhancement facility, and it was a hatchery fish, and we had already bumped the numbers up a bit.

Where does that come into play? The definition of fish and fish habitat and harm to that is much easier.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Is that something the committee should be looking at, or is it in this recommendation?

[Zo Ann Morten]

You can look at it. I don't know if you'll find an answer.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Again, following on the theme, from those who were on the development side of witnesses appearing, regardless of whether they were farmers, miners, loggers, or municipal developers, they felt that the 2012 changes more clearly defined sections to the act that they were dealing with. Groups from first nations communities and from all the fisher groups felt that those changes opened the act too widely to destroying habitat without any protection in place. So, you have the two different parallels.

Complicating that was what seemed to be the most negative impact, that at the same time that the 2012 changes were made to the Fisheries Act, there was a significant reduction in the number of personnel who could enforce what was there.

I would like to get comments from Ms. Gaertner on that, as well as from the witnesses from Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You only have 10 seconds.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's the end of my question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

For the witness, as well.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes. Ms. Gaertner.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Ms. Gaertner, I'm afraid you don't have much time, but go ahead.

[Brenda Gaertner]

If I've heard the question correctly, it is correct that it's difficult to measure precisely the implications of the amendments in 2012 and 2013, because it was tongue and groove with the decline in capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. You have to take a longer view on where we're going with the Fisheries Act to actually decide if that's where you want to be going. You can't just take the two or three years after its implementation.

Then the systemic kinds of changes that need to happen include not only the changes to the Fisheries Act but also the changes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' commitment to monitoring, compliance, and ensuring a robust collection of baseline data, all of the things that were struggling under the previous act but that were completely gutted, or very strongly gutted, under this act. You do have to look at both of those actions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

I'm afraid the time is up.

Keep in mind, for the questioners and our witnesses, that the time allotted includes the answers, as well. It's incumbent upon me as chair to be as fair as I can and give everybody enough time. I know seven minutes isn't very much, but if everybody could keep their questions and answers concise, we will get a lot more of both in each round.

We have Mr. Doherty for seven minutes.

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

Once again I just want to say thank you to our witnesses. I'll echo Mr. Morrissey's comments in terms of the variety of witnesses we've had over the past weeks on this study.

I do have a couple of comments I want to make prior to my questions, though.

Ms. Morten, we have heard a couple of times about the stated purpose, and I think that is important. I'm hoping we will give direction to that as we move forward, as well as the operating statements. A couple of witnesses have said that.

I understand that the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation was initiated in my hometown of Williams Lake in May 1995, so I commend you on that, as well.

I do want to go to Ms. Gaertner and the First Nations Fisheries Council. I sense the frustration in your voice. I do think it needs to be noted that there are those on this side of the table who suggested earlier on that this study take place for a longer term and that, indeed, we meet with all groups—even meeting with them in their communities, as well, going to Mr. Andrews' comment about people in communities. This really is what this is about, and it is what it impacts.

My question for Ms. Gaertner, right off the bat, is, how many meetings has your group had with the government on fisheries or with respect to our first nations fisheries in the province of British Columbia?

[Brenda Gaertner]

Do you mean meetings as it relates to the revisions to the Fisheries Act?

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

Yes, over the last year.

[Brenda Gaertner]

I think there were less than four or five information sessions regionally, provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which introduced this review, but they were just introductory meetings to provide a purpose of the review and the nature of the statutory changes.

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

Were those throughout the whole year? What was the time frame?

[Brenda Gaertner]

The actual meetings began in the fall and happened over a period of one month.

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

Did you say they were regional meetings?

[Brenda Gaertner]

There were five regional meetings in British Columbia.