Evidence of meeting #96 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 fishermen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Councillor, District of Kent
There's a whole Oregon spotted frog recovery team. They would probably be better able to answer some of those questions. However, if we maintain that grass, even just by cutting it, it actually improves the habitat for that frog.
Councillor, District of Kent
We're often not allowed to cut grass along ditches because it's deemed as fish habitat, but on some watercourses we are allowed to, and in those courses we don't have to do any actual excavating of ditch material. It can go 10 to 15 years without any real work in those ditches, just by cutting the grass.
The frog benefits from that grass being shorter. If it grows quite tall and falls over in the winter, it's not good habitat for the frog either.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
The frog was just an example I used.
When you change or take away certain native things, whether it be grass or conditions, you wouldn't know that you might be destroying a certain other species that could be food for something else. I'm reaching far here.
Anyway, as far as the regulation itself is concerned, do you find that in the provincial and the federal regulations, DFO's, there is an overlap? Is there a layering of regulations? Are they well-coordinated as far as when you're applying for a permit to alter a wetland or a brook is concerned?
Councillor, District of Kent
There is some overlap, but really it comes down to who has the jurisdiction. We often have to wait for approvals before we get the go-ahead to do the work.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Is there a sequence? Would you go to the province first and then you would go to DFO? Is there a sequence, and will this act change some of that?
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Post.
Ms. Nowlan, you were referring to the loss of some of the fish, such as the cod, and how on the east coast the Atlantic salmon and also the salmon on the west coast have been going down over the years. Of course, a lot of the reasons for the numbers going down probably have to do with human practices and commercial activities, but there are also other things.
We know that on the east coast, for instance, the habitat has been moving north. We're quite sure that it's related to warming waters. I'm just curious about how far-reaching the act should be, because we know that one of the reasons the waters are warming up is all the CO2 in the atmosphere, which warms the air and then eventually the water.
As far as the legal side is concerned, how far do you think it should be reaching? It could be also just applying road salt or whatever. How far should we go in saying this is harming the fish and therefore we need to go right to the source?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
That's a hard one. I think the impact of climate change and a warming ocean on fish is beyond my expertise, but I know that lawyers and regulators are trying to figure out how to address this in law. It's a really major issue for all resource management, but fisheries in particular. I think DFO takes an adaptive management approach where they can see the results of their fisheries management decisions, and hopefully adapt them so that if the fish are moving north, then they move their management effort and attention further north.
I think you've asked a hard one. How far should the act go? I guess it's a question of how much we value the wild fish in our ocean, and whether we want to keep them there. We should go a long way, I think, to keep them there.
We've really decimated a lot of fish stocks around the world. Canada does have good fisheries management, generally. We're probably an envy of the world, but if we want to keep that up, we have to go pretty far in the law. I think it's a really important legacy for our children, grandchildren, future generations. Also, what will happen to the ecosystems if the fish are gone? No one really knows. Will jellyfish take over? Will plastic take over? There are studies which say there will be more plastic in the sea by 2100—
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)
Thank you, Ms. Nowlan. I'm sorry I have to cut you off, but we have to keep on time here.
We'll go to Mr. Miller for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Ms. Nowlan and Mr. Post for being here.
Mr. Post, I'd like to get a clearer example of the kinds of problems your municipality went through because of DFO regulations, or whatever, and if there's a connection. I come from a municipal background, so I certainly sympathize with you.
You made one comment about replacing a culvert or whatever, and having to maintain the bank. Part of your one comment, I believe it was to Mr. McDonald, was about the fact of maintaining the invasive species of grasses, whether it's canary grass or whatever else. I can understand if you're trying to remove grass in the water, because that is part of the fish habitat, but to be stopped from maintaining or cutting the grass up to the bank shouldn't be an issue. Could you clarify that? Did I misunderstand your comments?
Councillor, District of Kent
I don't think you misunderstood my comments. Even if it's just grass that's along a ditch bank, we have to apply to DFO to cut that grass. If that's the only habitat on that ditch, they may or may not approve that, or we may have to only cut one bank and not be allowed to cut both banks. In some of the ditch maintenance work that we've done, we're only allowed to maintain 150 metres, and then leave 150 metres, and then do another 150. Then the following year we clean the sections we missed in the previous year.
If we were allowed to do the whole channel, we wouldn't have to go back for probably five years. Because we're just piecing it together, by the time you finally get it clean, you're back to where you started and you really haven't lowered the level of water in the ditch.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
First of all, I can't imagine for the life of me how DFO or anybody could justify that you have to apply to cut grass onshore and not in the water. To me, that's just bureaucrats hanging on to something.
I only have how much time?
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Ms. Nowlan, you stated that your group is non-profit, and I only have two minutes here, so answer very briefly, please.
Where do you get your funding in general?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
It's a combination of sources: the public, foundations, some government contracts, some fees for service.
Conservative
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Sometimes they want advice about environmental laws, different levels of government.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay. Well, the government has lots of lawyers on staff, so there's—
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
We have no current federal government direct funding that I'm aware of.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
That's fine. I just think it's ridiculous, when government already has its own lawyers, that they would hire. I'm sure your lawyers are good; that's not the point here. It's about spending money—bad money, I'd say.
Do you get any money from Tides, Sierra Club, the Clinton Foundation? You mentioned foundations.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
No, not the Clinton Foundation. We have three associated non-profits. I'm here with the association, and the association does not get foundation funding from the sources you mentioned. But the related research foundations—
Conservative