Fisheries Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Darren Goetze]

Sorry, I cannot off the top of my head.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you provide that to me?

[Darren Goetze]

I'll attempt to do so, yes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thanks.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Arnold, please, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was hoping to get to some of these questions while we still had the minister here, but I will direct my questions to the assistant deputy minister.

Mr. Morel, last week, there was a major court decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia with the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations on the west coast of B.C.

Have you studied that 400-page decision and referenced it to how it may impact this bill?

[Philippe Morel]

Of course, there are many people in the department who are studying the Ahousaht decision. It's a very important decision on how we will manage the fisheries and also our relationship with indigenous people. We are looking at all the impacts, but right now I don't have an analysis of how this decision will impact the Fisheries Act.

More from the fisheries management perspective, I don't know, Adam, if you wish to respond. We are at the same place, so we're studying it right now. We're still in the period of a potential appeal, but we're not waiting for that to look at the decision. It is very complex and detailed, but a very useful decision for us. We will look at it and see if there's some adjustment needed.

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

We still don't know if that decision may impact this act. We are here today to study the act, possibly make amendments to it, and send it back to the House, yet you haven't finished analyzing the court decision to see whether it's going to impact the bill in any work we're doing.

[Philippe Morel]

We have a court decision every week that impacts DFO's operations, so we always take into consideration the decisions made by courts and we adapt. Even in the Fisheries Act, there are some amendments that we call “housekeeping” because they incorporate some changes that were required by previous court decisions. When we have that opportunity, we do adjust. Right now, if we need to adjust, we will see what we need to do in the short term, but I don't think we should wait to proceed with the Fisheries Act.

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

Do you have an estimated time frame for when you will finish reviewing the Nuu-chah-nulth or Ahousaht decision?

[Philippe Morel]

We don't have a precise one, but we're on it right now.

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

I see this release from the minister saying, “As an immediate step, I have directed Fisheries and Oceans Canada to review the Pacific Salmon Allocation Policy. We will work in collaboration with Indigenous groups and all stakeholders to renew and co-develop this policy.”

Looking at the managing factors in that allocation policy, the first concern is conservation. The second is first nations, I believe, concerning food, social, and ceremonial uses. Third is common property resource. Fourth is recreational allocation. Fifth is commercial allocation. Sixth is selected fisheries, and seventh is other allocations.

Where will the Ahousaht or Nuu-chah-nulth decision place those commercial fisheries on that list of priorities?

[Adam Burns, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

To answer your question, I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome of the review of that. I think the court spoke clearly to the fact that the salmon allocation policy did need to be changed, but in terms of what the resulting policy would say, I wouldn't want to speak to that.

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

Why did it say it needed to be changed? Can you be a little more specific?

[Adam Burns]

Unfortunately, I don't have the court ruling in front of me, so I'm working from my recollection of the ruling, but I think it spoke to the priority structure of allocations within the policy and the fact that for certain—

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

That was the list I just gave you, so I'm asking what specifically it said is not right.

[Adam Burns]

I think it was the priority to recreational fishing for certain species over indigenous access. Again, I'm saying it based on recollection, but I think that was the general observation of the court. The department will be working with all those stakeholder groups you identified to—

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

Are you indicating that a commercial indigenous fishery may supersede a recreational or a public fishery?

[Adam Burns]

Again, I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome of that work. As the minister said, the department is working with indigenous communities, stakeholders—

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

Does that appear to be what may be needed?

[Adam Burns]

I wouldn't want to speculate on what the outcome of the review will result in.

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

Another piece I have here is a review from a legal review paper stating that the changes to the Fisheries Act would be a “bonanza for lawyers who advise on environmental and other regulatory matters” because of the uncertainty that's being created here. Can you comment on that?

You must have seen that report. It came out February 7, 2018, in The Lawyer's Daily. It said, “Bill C-68 introduced by the Trudeau government on Feb. 6 would also create a bit of a bonanza for lawyers who advise on environmental and other regulatory matters.”

[Philippe Morel]

I haven't seen that particular legal advice, so it's a difficult for me to say what it is. Certainly one of the objectives of the modification was to bring certainty to investors and proponents and clarity for other stakeholders in how we manage fisheries. Is that referring to the way we manage major projects, or is it referring to fisheries allocation? I don't know. It's difficult for me to comment.

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

Again, your opinion seems to differ from those of lawyers, and I'll stick with a lawyer's legal opinion.

[The Chair]

Mr. Donnelly, please, you have seven minutes.