Evidence of meeting #95 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chair  Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)
Churence Rogers  Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.
Philippe Morel  Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Darren Goetze  Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Adam Burns  Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Nicholas Winfield  Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Mark Waddell  Acting Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

8:45 a.m.

The Chair Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are studying Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Before we begin today's meeting, I would like to ask the committee to observe a moment of silence, please, for the victims of the tragedy yesterday in Toronto.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

Today, appearing before committee in our first hour this morning, we have the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Welcome, Minister LeBlanc. We also have with us, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Philippe Morel, assistant deputy minister, aquatic ecosystems sector, and Mark Waddell, acting director general, fisheries and licence policy, fisheries and harbour management.

Mr. LeBlanc, I believe you have 10 minutes for your opening statement.

8:45 a.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee again. I am always pleased to be here with you.

If you are having a hard time understanding me, it is because I have had a cold for about two weeks. My apologies.

Madam Chair, I want to congratulate you on being elected chair of the committee. You are very familiar with fisheries issues since the fishing industry is so important in your riding.

My sincere congratulations. I look forward to working with you and the members of the committee.

As you said, Madam Chair, I am joined today by two senior officials of our department, Philippe Morel and Mark Waddell. When you have very technical questions on particular sections of the legislation, rather than my trying to answer in a way that may mislead you, I would obviously want them to join in and provide you with that information.

On February 6, our government introduced in the House of Commons an anticipated piece of legislation that will bring some much-needed changes to one of Canada's oldest environmental laws.

Once again, I'd like to thank this committee for the study they did on the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. I have said before that I believe that a great deal of what our government has suggested as amendments was inspired by the work of this committee, so I want to thank you. Your hard work helped shape the legislation you have before you today, which was voted on at second reading in the House of Commons, and as a government, we look forward to working closely with this committee.

We reached out to all Canadians to hear their ideas about how to restore and modernize the Fisheries Act and I think we listened. The response was incredible. We received thousands of letters and emails and held hundreds of meetings with partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups. Tens of thousands of Canadians participated in online surveys through two phases of public consultation.

We have worked very closely with our provincial and territorial partners and with indigenous groups across Canada to make sure we hear their concerns and take them into account.

In addition to protecting fish and their habitat, we recognize that certain fisheries management measures have to be modernized for the long-term survival of our fisheries. The amendments proposed in the bill before you are as follows:

new tools to conserve and protect important species and ecosystems through modernized fisheries management measures; measures that will help rebuild depleted fish stocks and make habitat restoration a priority prior to the development of major projects; and amendments that will help clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement powers under the act.

If passed, the proposed amendments will also provide the power to implement regulations on owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and will give force of law to these essential policies, which have existed for over four decades. This in turn, as you all know, will support the independence of inshore and midshore harvesters, which is critical to their economic livelihood as well as that of the families and coastal communities who depend on these important economic actors.

Our government promised to listen to Canadians about how to update the Fisheries Act, and I believe we've kept that promise. We've also listened to the concerns expressed by our parliamentary colleagues, with an aim to further improve, clarify, and strengthen this legislation. During the debate in the House on February 13, I took note of some of the concerns that were raised by our colleagues in the House of Commons. They included but were obviously not limited to a heavier regulatory burden placed on industry and major natural resource development projects; a need to protect environmental flows, which refers to the quality and quantity of water in rivers and how it contributes to the ultimate protection of fish; an unease about DFO's dual mandate to conserve wild salmon while promoting salmon farming, especially on the Pacific coast; and once this legislation is passed, the need for strong regulations around the rebuilding of fish stocks that have clear definitions and also consider the impact of climate change and species interactions.

I'd like to express my hope that we can work together again in the spirit of co-operation that I think this committee has always exhibited. Your committee did, we think, important work in improving Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, in which five opposition amendments were accepted and passed by this committee. Those, in my view, made the legislation better.

I hope the legislation you currently have before you proceeds in the same spirit of collaboration. Obviously I would be happy to work with all members of the committee, if you have particular suggested texts of amendments. If there's any way that our department and the Department of Justice can work with you beforehand to ensure that, from our perspective, the text achieves what a particular member hopes, it's sometimes easier than having at the last minute some confusion whereby the Department of Justice says to us that a particular text, for whatever reason, is technically not achieving what the particular aim is. If any colleagues at this table want, in the spirit of co-operation, to share with us some ideas and we can help in any way, obviously we would be happy to do so.

As you have seen, Madam Chair, the proposed amendments in this bill that will have an impact on fish and their habitat are intended to better protect our natural resources for future generations, while preserving economic opportunities for the many individuals and their families and the communities that depend on those resources.

The proposed amendments will help reduce the regulatory burden on the industry while giving major project proponents greater certainty, which will improve the transparency and predictability of federal environmental assessments.

For small projects, the codes of practice will be published in part I of the Canada Gazette and will provide clear direction on how to avoid harmful effects on fish and their habitat. The same is true for agriculture and small municipal projects. People often say that they do not want to harm the fish and their habitat, and that they want to obey the law. So we are trying to find a simple way of balancing those aspects.

Another example is DFO's commitment to rebuild fish stocks. In 2017, our department launched a plan to put into effect rebuilding plans for 19 fish stocks on a staggered basis over four years. We have policies that set out requirements regarding stock rebuilding plans, including objectives and timelines aimed at rebuilding these stocks that take into account factors such as ocean conditions, species interaction, and habitat.

I believe that there are a lot of positive elements in this legislation that reflect input from numerous parties, including this committee, indigenous groups, industry, environmental groups, provinces and territories, municipal organizations, and the fishers themselves.

I've always thought that our collective responsibility as parliamentarians is to steward our environment with care and in a way that is practical, reasonable, and sustainable. I believe that the proposed amendments strike that important balance by safeguarding environmental protections for fish and fish habitat, something that Canadians are deeply concerned about, while also ensuring that mechanisms are in place for sustainable economic growth, job creation, and resource development.

As I look around the table, I see many colleagues here, Madam Chair, yourself included, who represent communities that depend, in some cases overwhelmingly, on the economic impact of Canada's fisheries. That's why this legislation, from our perspective, is an important piece of environmental legislation. It's also an economic piece of legislation in the sense that if we get that balance right, we can ensure the long-term economic prosperity of the communities that many of you represent, for generations to come.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are just a few opening comments, but obviously, I look forward to questions from colleagues.

8:55 a.m.

Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you, Minister.

You still had two and a half minutes left.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

I'm sure that somebody at this table would be happy to take up that time, Madam Chair.

8:55 a.m.

Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)

The Chair

I'd also like to welcome Mr. Sopuck to the committee today.

Thank you for coming.

We'll go to the government side for the first seven minutes.

Mr. Rogers.

8:55 a.m.

Churence Rogers Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll indicate now that I'm going to split my time with MP Finnigan.

Welcome, Minister. Welcome, officials.

It's my first opportunity to ask a question, I guess, at this committee.

I was not here earlier, but in 2017, this committee undertook a comprehensive study of the 2012 challenges to the act. One of the recommendations was that ministerial discretion be subject to public disclosure in an effort to improve the transparency of decision-making.

Minister, in that vein, will there be a public disclosure of factors that you consider in decision-making?

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

First of all, Mr. Rogers, congratulations on joining this committee. I've had the privilege also to visit your constituency in your province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think you'll bring a great deal of insight to the work of this committee, and I look forward to working with you.

We have thought for a number of years, and Canadians have told us, that one of the challenges in managing ecosystems, fish stocks, and allocations is the issue of transparency. That's why, for example, we put in the legislation what we call modern safeguards. For example, should the legislation be passed, if a minister in our government or, obviously, a future government wanted to make decisions around commercial fisheries of a stock or the harvesting of a stock that was in the critical zone, that was under threat, there would be a positive obligation on the government to provide information to Canadians on rebuilding plans.

We think that a way to increase public confidence in these issues is to show Canadians the important work that our scientists do and the vast consultations that take place through advisory committee mechanisms and other meetings that industry has with our department. Anything, from our perspective, that would bring greater public confidence to those decisions would be positive.

9 a.m.

Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.

Churence Rogers

Madam Chair, I have one further question if I have time.

Proposed subsection 34.2(3) indicates that standards and codes of practice may be developed collaboratively with the provinces, indigenous governing bodies, and other stakeholders.

What do you envision this collaboration looking like, and how extensive will it be?

9 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

That question is one that I have heard discussed in every part of the country. I had the privilege to be in Regina some weeks ago where I met with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and agricultural producer representatives. That was an area of huge concern for them.

These codes of practice, we believe, represent the right, flexible, common-sense approach to complying with fisheries legislation, without repeating some of the mistakes of a decade ago where fisheries conservation officers were enforcing the Fisheries Act in the middle of a farmer's field in Saskatchewan. We heard those horror stories and we recognized that this concern is real. That's what I have assured these Saskatchewan producers.

The same thing would apply to small municipalities undertaking small municipal works. Where they can comply with these codes of practice, which will be publicly known, and where they want to comply with them, as everybody would, it would not represent a regulatory burden. I have said to people around the country, to these rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, to municipal representatives I've met, and to my colleagues here today that we would welcome input. To this end, we will be reaching out directly to these organizations to ensure that their views are taken into consideration when we develop these codes of practice. We have scientists and other experts who can provide advice, but to make sure we have the right balance, we need to hear from those who would ultimately be affected, the people who would be using those codes of practice. We would welcome any and all suggestions on how to get that right.

9 a.m.

Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.

9 a.m.

Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Finnigan.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Leblanc, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

As you mentioned, Minister, a lot of us are in communities that depend on the fisheries and oceans economically and recreationally. Also, in my riding, as in yours, which is just below mine, I have four first nation communities, and you have a couple in yours, along the same coast, that also depend on the fisheries for economic and ceremonial purposes as well as for food. One of the proposed changes to the act is a requirement that the traditional knowledge of indigenous people will be considered in habitat decisions.

Could you elaborate on what traditional knowledge is and its importance in further reconciliation?

9 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Finnigan, you and I have had a chance to talk about this, and we have also talked with indigenous leaders from our province in New Brunswick. I have thought, as part of our government's framework for the recognition of rights and a nation-to-nation approach to reconciliation, that we should acknowledge, when making decisions on the management of ecosystems and fisheries resources, that one of the important inputs has to be the traditional knowledge that indigenous people have held for, in many cases, thousands of years. That can and should form part of the considerations that, in our view, ministers and governments must take into account when making decisions on the sustainable management of ecosystems.

We thought it would be important to clarify in the law an obligation on the government to consider traditional knowledge. It is also important to safeguard that traditional knowledge because, in the traditional intellectual property sense, that knowledge doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the indigenous nations. We wanted to have provisions to assure them that, if their knowledge was shared with governments as part of a scientific exercise in understanding ecosystems, this knowledge would be respected and also protected. We wanted to have that clearly spelled out in the legislation.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Would we have concrete examples? When you're talking about protection, how could this work so that we also protect their knowledge, rights, patents, or whatever you want to call it? How would that work? Can you give us an example?

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

I'm not a patent or trademark lawyer. I used that as a public policy example, Mr. Finnigan. I've had the privilege of meeting indigenous communities on all of our coasts who talked to me about their impressions of resources, changes in water temperatures and ecosystems, and what they're seeing over time. That to me should form part of the scientific analysis that governments and other public policy institutions take into account. I think this can be done in a very collaborative way.

9:05 a.m.

Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Arnold.

April 24th, 2018 / 9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the department for being here today. This is an important act and it deserves great scrutiny.

I was interested to hear the question from the member from Newfoundland, Mr. Rogers. I think he was alluding to something that he's probably a little bit apprehensive to bring out directly because he's afraid of suffering the fate of our former chair here, but recently there were some decisions made with the reallocation of the surf clam quota. You spoke a great deal about transparency in decisions, that they should be open, that there should be consultation.

It appears that decision, the reallocation or award of that allocation, was made to a non-existent corporation at the time. They had no indigenous partners at the time and they had no boat at the time, apparently not meeting any of the criteria that were set out by the department to be able to qualify for that reallocation.

Do you consider that transparent? Can you be more transparent about why that decision was made?

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Thank you, Mr. Arnold, for the question.

I'm more than happy to be transparent about why that important decision was made.

In your question, I think one of the key words was “apparently”. One of the challenges...and members of the former Conservative government would appreciate this. When you have an open process where you invite industry and indigenous partners to provide proposals and submissions on an issue like this, it is very similar to what former minister Shea did in 2014 when 14 different proposals were received, as I am told—I haven't seen those. I returned those proposals unopened to the proponents because, as we said before, they didn't include any indigenous participation in that particular process.

We followed a process very similar to that. We asked companies with experience in offshore fisheries to partner with indigenous communities, but one of the challenges is commercial confidentiality, and the commercial information that governments receive in these proposals is not made public. That's a very normal thing. It's a practice followed by previous governments, so when people—

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Excuse me, Minister. The corporation wasn't incorporated until after the actual reallocation was made. How does that meet the criteria?

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Again, we can go into the details of particular proposals, and some people who were not successful in a proposal because in our view they didn't provide the necessary economic benefits that we were seeking to achieve have been offering all kinds of comments that have inaccurate information with respect to who.... I can tell you this without talking about specific proposals because that would be inappropriate.

In the proposals we received, should some of the suggestions you made be accurate, this particular proponent would not have been alone in some of those circumstances. You said, “apparently,” so I think you would acknowledge that perhaps some of them or not all of them are as precise. It's not public information because it's commercially protected.

What I am trying to say is that industry partnered with indigenous communities, and to say, by the way, that this particular proponent—

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Were you just—

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Arnold, I'm answering your question.

To say that perhaps this particular proponent, as you asserted, did not have indigenous partners at the time of their proposal is, I can tell you, on the face of it, absolutely inaccurate. It's just an example of some of the inaccuracies that are contained in this conversation, and as I say, one of the challenges is to respect the confidentiality of the commercial information we received from the nine proponents. I don't think it's fair to compare, in theory, one particular proposal to another proposal when in fact none of those facts are—

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

If I can interject, Minister, did you imply just a few moments ago that there were other applications that had similar flaws to the one that was actually accepted?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

No. First of all, I wouldn't have characterized them as “flaws”. That's your word. What I did say was that some of the inaccurate or misleading stories I have seen with respect to this proposal—

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

You were talking about the other actual applications, not the stories.