Fisheries Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As we know, the environment commissioner just finished her lock-up. There was information there that has to do with salmon aquaculture, among other things. Her report seems pretty scathing with respect to how the department is handling aquaculture.

I want to read out a couple of quotes. In their audit, they examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the CFIA oversaw the salmon farming industry “to protect wild fish”. They said that this industry creates risks for wild fish, including exposure to diseases, drugs, and pesticides.

Specifically, she said that “the Department had completed only 1 of the 10 risk assessments” for key known diseases, and it was not addressing new and emerging diseases at all. She says, most importantly—

[The Chair]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Donnelly, has that report been released now?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair]

The lock-up is over.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That is correct.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

She said, most importantly, they found that the Department was not monitoring the health of wild fish. As a result, Fisheries and Oceans Canada had no way of knowing what impacts salmon farming has on the health of wild fish.

Do you have any comments on this disturbing analysis?

[Philippe Morel]

It is disturbing. The reinvestment made in science two years ago in budget 2016 provided the department with some resources for support to research the aquaculture impact on the ocean and on wild fish. There's a series of 10 risk assessment studies being done right now. One was released. All the risk assessments are planned and will all be delivered by 2020, as expected by the Cohen report. We anticipate issuing a new risk assessment study in the near future and throughout the period. The department is pretty confident that all these risk assessment studies will be issued before 2020.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

The environment commissioner goes on to say, “These findings led [her department] to conclude that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not managed risks from salmon farming in a way that protected wild fish.” That's a pretty strong statement.

Turning to the Fisheries Act, when referring to the purpose of the act, is there any reason not to put a stronger focus on the conservation, restoration, rebuilding, and sustainable use of fish populations in the act?

[Nicholas Winfield, Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The purpose statement does provide for the first time the opportunity to focus the act. As the minister said, we're open to any comments that you may have on that point. Right now, it's pretty focused on giving meaning to the legislation, so we're open to your input on that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's great. I think it's to be commended that you have a purpose statement like the Oceans Act, so this is a really positive move.

In terms of environmental flows and fish passage, how will environmental flows and fish passage needed to protect and restore fish habitat be factored into authorizations under proposed section 35?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Proposed section 35 requires that all of the factors laid out in section 34 are met, and those factors include whether restoration of fish habitat has been duly considered prior to issuing an authorization.

The sections related to fish passage and flow have been revised to really take into account the fish habitat requirements, which include flow needs and temperature needs. The framework for decision-making and the factors section, linked to the authorization requirements and the changes to fish passage and flow, are intended to be more holistic in nature and to address fish conservation issues.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Do they anticipate climate change or a changing climate?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Climate change is not specifically referenced in the act. Cumulative effects are, but we do take into account ecosystem conditions and we will need to document that.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's a big issue with a lot of creeks, streams, and rivers warming now with less water and higher temperatures. You mentioned temperatures. That's something now that, I think, with the changing climate, we're going to be all faced with.

Do I have a little bit of time left?

[The Chair]

You have one minute and 46 seconds.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

I'll just turn to residual impacts. Can you explain how the cumulative impact of small or low-risk projects will be addressed under the amendments to the act that are proposed in Bill C-68?

[Nicholas Winfield]

One of the biggest issues that's come up in both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 is addressing cumulative effects. All the federal departments are investing time and effort to think through more holistically how each of the pieces of legislation can be gathering information that supports better cumulative effects assessment.

The Fisheries Act provides an opportunity, first off, with issues like codes of practice and standards development, the ability to notify DFO that projects are taking place on the landscape, and also then the ability to have information available to assess cumulative effects over time.

This is only one of the opportunities that exist. There are more opportunities just in terms of investing more time and effort in looking at trends in ecosystems, as compared to only looking at projects and site-specific impacts. That's part of our investment towards science and looking at ecosystem changes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

In the short remaining seconds that I have, can you briefly tell the committee a little bit more about types of projects for which information will be captured in the public registry?

[Nicholas Winfield]

The public registry will list all projects that require authorizations. It will also list the standards that have been codified and provided publicly. The proposed section on the public registry actually lists all the kinds of documents that will be gathered and made publicly available. That is the starting point. Once we have the registry in play, it will be easier to look at how we can best use that for other pieces of public information.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Mr. McDonald, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today. I know that some of you have been here several times before committee.

The fisheries is no doubt a complicated file and a complicated department. When you look at what our fisheries have done, especially on the east coast.... I'm from Newfoundland, and 26 years ago, it was the northern cod moratorium. Today we still look at that stock, and it's well below the critical zone 26 years later. I didn't know much about the fishery until I came here in October 2015, and it was a quick learning curve. It seems to me that for decades—and I don't know how many to go back—successive governments have done a very poor job of, one, managing fishery stocks, and two, implementing a rebuilding plan.

Other areas around the world.... I'll use Norway as an example. It had an issue with its cod stock, and it rebuilt it in six or seven years. We seem to not catch up or something, or we just think it will do it on its own without any help. Part of the bill is to provide better certainty for industry. What's that certainty going to look like? What are we going to do to provide better certainty for the people involved in this industry?

[Mark Waddell, Acting Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Part of the move towards better certainty begins with the identification that the proposed considerations section of the act would now outline the factors that the minister will consider when he's making a fisheries management decision or any other decision under the act. Those are not exhaustive lists of considerations, and they won't apply in all circumstances.

With regard to rebuilding, there's now the inclusion in the proposed amendments that the minister shall consider whether a rebuilding plan is in place when he's making a decision on a depleted species. I'll carry through on your example for northern cod. Northern cod was one of the stocks that was identified by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in 2016, and it was identified as part of the work plan by the department to develop 19 rebuilding plans going back to the stock sheet identified in her audit. We are working on a rebuilding plan for northern cod.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's a little bit late, but hopefully it will work because it was only, I think, a couple of years ago that some organizations were lobbying to have the northern cod listed as an endangered species. I hope that going forward we do a much better job of it.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is this. We read that traditional knowledge is going to play a big role in this. In my riding, I don't have any indigenous groups or indigenous fisheries, but what I do hear from fishermen in the communities and on the wharfs is that the officials don't take into account the knowledge that they have, especially even on the fishery of the previous season: the catch rates, where they were catching, and whether they were poor catch rates or good catch rates. We don't take that into account.

Are we saying that with traditional knowledge, we'll also include local fishermen who take part in the various fisheries and the knowledge and experience that they have from fishing any particular stock?

[Philippe Morel]

Yes, the section, the proposed amendment, does include traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge, but it also includes community knowledge. It's another knowledge that the minister, on top of science, needs to consider before taking any decision.

When there's no indigenous knowledge that has been provided to the minister, the minister doesn't have to take any consideration. For every decision the minister takes, he does consult indigenous groups but also communities and he has to take into consideration the information that is provided to him to support the decision-making process.