Evidence of meeting #99 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 municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 99 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 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.
We will have to convene this meeting a little earlier than we originally thought. For the first hour, from the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, we have Matt Thomas, acting director economic development, by video conference.
Can you hear me?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Perfect. Thank you.
We also have with us Bridget Doyle, natural resources planner, treaty, lands and resources department.
By video conference, we have Ray Orb, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.
Can you hear me?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Perfect. Thank you.
We also have, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ron Bonnett, the president, who is here in person.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Thomas and Ms. Doyle, you have the first 10 minutes. I don't know if you're splitting your time or if one person will be speaking.
12:10 p.m.
Acting Director, Economic Development, Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Just one at this time.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Acting Director, Economic Development, Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to present to you today on the important matter of Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. We are here today to specifically address the Fisheries Act.
My name is Matt Thomas. I am a Tsleil-Waututh member and acting director of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation's economic development department. From here on in, I will refer to Tsleil-Waututh Nation as TWN. I have an extensive history of working on fisheries and fisheries-related files in various roles with the nation. I continue to play an active role in managing TWN food, social, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries. I am joined by Bridget Doyle, natural resources planner for TWN, and Michael George, cultural and technical adviser for TWN.
Today, I will speak to our priorities that reflect how we, as first nations that hold rights under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, will be impacted through legislation, regulation, and policy. I urge you to refer to our written submission for more details and priority topic areas.
I would like to begin with a brief introduction to the TWN so that you understand a bit more about who we are and the perspective that we have. TWN are the People of the Inlet, and we have used and occupied the lands and waters of Burrard Inlet since time out of mind. The TWN community is located on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet in North Vancouver, British Columbia. We hold a sacred obligation and responsibility to steward our lands and waters for our ancestors, for our generation, and for those to come. TWN does this through actively asserting and exercising our stewardship and governance rights. This includes participating in consultations with the crown over the hundreds of development projects proposed within our territory every year, many of which relate to authorizations under the Fisheries Act. We are also heavily engaged in proactive initiatives that assert TWN stewardship and governance rights to monitor, protect, and restore ecological integrity and functioning. This includes the protection, restoration, and management of fish and fish habitat.
Arguably, no Canadian legislation other than the Indian Act, 1985, has imposed the same level of determination over first nations physical, cultural, spiritual, and economic health and well-being as the Fisheries Act. In our view, the revision and modernization of the Fisheries Act provides a much-needed systemic shift in how Canada engages with the indigenous groups to manage fish, fish habitat, and fisheries. The proposed amendments contained within Bill C-68 offer a significant improvement over the existing Fisheries Act. Most notably, TWN applauds the Government of Canada for repealing the definition of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. We also applaud the reinstating of broader protections under the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of the fish habitat provision.
However, we have remaining concerns that specifically affect TWN as a rights-holder. We believe the purpose section needs to be strengthened and broadened to reflect modern fisheries governance and management issues in Canada as well as the outcomes the law is intended to deliver. For managing fish and fish habitat, this must include the purpose of restoration. Due to adverse cumulative effects, TWN is in the position of having to restore fish and fish habitat within our territory before being able to access and exercise our constitutionally protected aboriginal rights.
Restoration is a key piece of everything we do, and many indigenous communities across Canada are in this same position. Providing clarity that restoration is one of the overall purposes of the Fisheries Act would help to empower the required actions from our governments.
It is also critical that the Government of Canada clearly state that one purpose of the Fisheries Act is reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The legislated respect for the existing rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, would be a strong starting point to add to the purpose of the act.
As you are aware, Canada has stated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its intent to implement UNDRIP. However, we see no mention whatsoever of UNDRIP in the act. Including these amendments in the purpose of the act would make them obligatory considerations in ministerial decision-making.
It would be irresponsible to future generations to ignore the issue of climate change in the revision of the Fisheries Act. Climate change must be considered in all aspects of fish and fish habitat protection, conservation, restoration, biodiversity, cumulative effects assessments, and fisheries management.
According to a study by Weatherdon et al. from 2016, as a result of climate change, it is anticipated that marine fish on the west coast of North America will shift their ranges poleward at a median rate of 10.3 kilometres per decade by 2050, relative to the year 2000. In British Columbia, first nation salmon catches are projected to decrease by 30%, and first nation herring catches will experience a 49% decline.
Without making provisions for climate change in the Fisheries Act, the Government of Canada is setting itself up for legal uncertainty with respect to constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. As currently implemented through policy, the burden is placed on indigenous groups to prove their traditional use and access to a fishery to receive food, and social and ceremonial licence to a particular species or fishing area. This policy has always been, and continues to be, a significant challenge to indigenous groups fully participating in fisheries and reinforces current adversarial challenges between the Government of Canada and indigenous groups.
In an era of rapid environmental change, shifts in species migration patterns, and biodiversity loss, the burden of proof of traditional use and access can no longer limit indigenous fishing opportunities. As our ancestors did, we continue to adapt and access all available resources within our territory that are not restricted by conservation concerns. Accessing new fisheries opportunities like, for example, fisheries migrating from warmer, southern waters, may become a critical climate change resiliency strategy for TWN to protect and maintain the physical, cultural, and economic foundation of our community.
The arbitrary requirement for proof of traditional use or access is outdated in a coastal system affected by climate-change-related impacts, and has no place in a modernized Fisheries Act.
In conclusion, again, I urge the committee to refer to TWN’s written submission for more detail and for priority areas of interest. I regrettably did not have time to discuss our views on governance structures, environmental flows, or the rebuilding of fish stocks.
However, I want to remind the committee that to facilitate effective decisions, assessments, and implementation under the Fisheries Act, a concerted effort is required by the Government of Canada to cross-reference and coordinate final legislative drafting between Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. These laws do not exist in complete isolation and must be revised as cohesive and significant pieces of Canada’s environmental legal landscape.
We request that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans refer the specific legal language proposed by TWN on Bill C-69 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with regard to indigenous jurisdiction and agreements, decision-making, and dispute resolution processes as they relate to the Fisheries Act.
TWN also supports the submissions on Bill C-68 by the FNFC-LFFA coalition and West Coast Environmental Law. We hope that you give their brief special consideration.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide oral testimony before the committee today. We look forward to further conversations with you or your delegates regarding some of these issues, many of which require further consultation with indigenous groups as you finalize the legislation.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Thank you, Mr. Thomas. That was right on time.
We are now going to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and Ray Orb, the president, by video conference.
You have 10 minutes.
12:20 p.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
My name is Ray Orb, and I am the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. SARM is an independent association that represents all 296 rural municipal governments in Saskatchewan.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.
Prior to 2012, the Fisheries Act placed unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens on municipalities and agriculture producers. The 2012 amendments to the act lessened these burdens. SARM is concerned that the current review and subsequent amendments may re-instate these unnecessary burdens, creating further delays to municipal infrastructure projects, increasing costs, and generally leading to more administrative burden for rural municipalities.
SARM supports ensuring that fish habitats are preserved and that any damage to habitat be mitigated through a balanced approach. Prior to 2012, the act applied to all waterways in Canada, regardless of whether the waterways actually supported fish habitats. Impact assessments and modified design and construction processes were often required for municipal bridges and culverts to accommodate fish habitats that, in many cases, did not exist. Municipal drainage maintenance was hindered by lengthy bureaucratic application processes for permits and authorizations. This resulted in requirements to install larger-than-necessary culverts to accommodate the passage of fish.
These requirements increased the costs of projects and delayed construction timelines, which is a significant burden given Saskatchewan’s very short construction season. For example, in the fall of 2011, the rural municipality of White Valley, which is in southwestern Saskatchewan, was replacing a culvert that intersected a seasonal running stream. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans assessed the work and concluded that a larger culvert for fish passage was necessary. This added $28,000 to the overall cost of the project. The cost was borne alone by the municipality’s ratepayers, even though Canada as a whole is a beneficiary of fish protection.
The current version of the Fisheries Act effectively balances the need for habitat protection with the need for municipal infrastructure development by focusing on federal oversight of the protection of Canada’s commercial, recreational, and indigenous fisheries. This results in increased autonomy for municipalities to use local tools to balance environmental stewardship and infrastructure development on other waterways.
For SARM’s members, the 2012 amendments streamlined review processes and improved enforcement mechanisms. These amendments also recognized that waterways such as drainage ditches and agricultural irrigation canals should not be treated in the same way as natural fish habitats.
This past March, SARM had the opportunity to meet with Minister LeBlanc and Minister Goodale to discuss the proposed amendments. At this meeting, we were pleased to learn from the ministers that the intent is not to return to the way things were prior to 2012, and that there is a strong intention to work with municipalities, agriculture producers, and provincial and territorial governments. We believe that making use of Saskatchewan environment officials to conduct investigations and partake in enforcement is an opportunity to avoid a duplication of efforts by using existing provincial services and maximizing fish and habitat protection.
For municipal projects, a code of best practices would benefit municipalities and other stakeholders. By having best practices in place, we can all play a role in environmental sustainability. Minister LeBlanc also mentioned that low, medium, and high-risk projects all need to be treated differently, and SARM is interested in hearing more about what determines what those categories are. SARM recommends that any amendments made to the Fisheries Act take into consideration the municipalities’ needs, and that any amendments do not bring back the administrative burdens and project delays that existed before the 2012 amendments were put in place. SARM encourages the federal government to consider providing funding to municipalities and individual land owners for the costs they accumulate while taking measures to maintain publicly beneficial fish and fish habitat for environmental stewardship.
SARM, along with the Western Canadian Municipal Association, strongly agree with the following recommendations by the committee: sufficient protection provisions to act as safeguards for municipalities; the expediting of permitting to allow for works that involve the restoration of damage, infrastructure, and emergency works to protect people and communities; an advisory committee, including municipalities, to provide ongoing recommendations regarding the administration and enforcement of the act.
Streamlining the review processes is important to municipalities, given our short construction season in Saskatchewan. Municipalities must be able to complete emergency projects in a timely manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Thank you very much, Mr. Orb.
Going now to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Ron Bonnett, who is here at the committee.
You have 10 minutes, please.
12:25 p.m.
Ron Bonnett President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thank you.
At the start, I would like to say that, like many of you, I was shocked at the passing of Gord Brown this morning. Gord was a great advocate for agriculture. Our thoughts are with him and his family at this time.
As many of you know, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is Canada's largest general farm organization. We represent producers through general farm organizations and commodity organizations across all of the provinces. Many of these farmers are impacted by the implementation of the Fisheries Act, particularly with respect to farm drainage.
At the outset, I should say that farmers are stewards of the land and aspire to leave the healthiest environments possible, from one generation of farms to the next. I could even give examples of what has been done on our own farm.
Many find intrinsic value in supporting biodiversity and water quality on the land. At the same time, farmers recognize that they are contributing to the public good and services with little or no compensation provided.
We seek a Fisheries Act that supports, not hinders, farmers' ability to remain good stewards of the land, while remaining profitable and competitive. CFA was concerned that changes to the current Fisheries Act would bring back the problems farmers experienced pre-2012. Indeed, I met with you on November 21, 2016, to provide advice from CFA's perspective on this committee's review of possible changes. We applaud this committee's report. Extensive consultations with Department of Fisheries and Oceans occurred in 2016 and 2017 and I believe that, as a committee, you and the government have listened to our concerns and our advice. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act go a long way to addressing Canadian Federation of Agriculture's concerns; however, the devil is always in the details.
Pre-2012, the experience of farmers was not positive, as it was characterized by lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations; a focus on enforcement and compliance measures, which were taken by officials, often with a lack of consistency; and a lack of guidance or outreach on the purpose of the measures being taken, or information on how to navigate through the process. Also pre-2012, the Fisheries Act was cumbersome and created major delays for farmers seeking to do minor work, like clearing drainage systems on their land.
As a former municipal politician, I should mention that some of these same challenges were faced by municipalities for minor works, as outlined by Ray Orb.
With the current Fisheries Act, many farmers were relieved when changes were made a few years ago that drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement of activities to their farm. It lifted the threat of their being deemed out of compliance.
Nevertheless, with this act, there were concerns expressed around a cumbersome DFO permit application process and the lack of information and guidance from the department on how to navigate through the system.
Under the proposed new act, there are many aspects that are welcome, such as the possibility of establishing a minister's advisory panel. That was lacking in previous versions of the act, as farmers and others had no formal means to provide ongoing advice.
There are commitments to streamlining the regulatory burden of the act, which we also welcome. However, further details and regulations need to be developed, before we know whether this will be approachable for farmers and rural municipalities to navigate.
As we understand it from discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, implicit in these commitments is a commitment by government to consult with those affected.
The proposed act also promises greater clarity for all, which we greatly welcome. The proposed act introduces the development of codes of practice, which would provide guidance for agricultural works and others, with the promise that there would not be a need to apply for and receive a permit for the proposed activity, as long as the farmer follows the codes.
We need to engage the industry in discussion about how these codes of practice are developed.
While further transparency for Canadians is always welcome, again, we need to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on any requirements for farmers to put their information about a project on a public registry, as well as what monitoring and compliance obligations this comes with. For a single owner-operator and small operations, we're concerned that, at the outset, this may place undue regulatory administrative burdens upon farmers, for whom this will be out of their field of expertise.
Farmers may also be concerned about their confidentiality, as, unlike most businesses, farmers live and work at the same address. This public registry may be better suited to projects that require permits, not those that would be developed under the codes of practice.
The CFA welcomes this bill, which includes financial investments to enable the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to manage the transition to a new act and to update regulations and implement them on the ground with the required support and expertise.
The House standing committee in its study of this subject recommended that farmers be given sufficient safeguards, and we maintain that generally accepted agricultural practices and those that actively work to minimize any impact to fish habitat by operations and maintenance should not be unduly burdened by the regulatory process.
We also look forward to working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to advance stewardship opportunities over enforcement ones. As I mentioned in a previous appearance, stewardship versus regulation will get farmers to respond and reach the end goal of protecting habitat.
We look forward to working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that the regulations are developed in a manner that respects the agricultural practices that are needed to efficiently and reliably produce food for Canadians and for export.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Thank you very much, Mr. Bonnett.
Before we go to questions, on behalf of our committee and all of my colleagues here, I would like to publicly extend our condolences to our Conservative colleagues. When something like this happens—the death of a member—we all stand together as parliamentarians, and our hearts and thoughts are with you today as you go through this difficult time.
Having said that, we will have our first round of questions. Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 1, 2018, the round of questioning will be five minutes each for all parties. We will probably get through one round of questioning before we have to move to the next witnesses. We will be adjourning this meeting at a quarter to two, so that we can be in the House in time for the memorial.
Going to the first round of questioning for five minutes, we have Mr. Hardie on the government side.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
I have a question for each of you, so short answers would be appreciated in the five minutes I have.
When we studied the previous government's changes to the act, we did put a lot of emphasis on reserving what we thought were really good ideas that they had brought forward and improving the things that we learned over time needed refining.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Orb. We now have the standards and codes of practice for small and routine projects. In your view does that set up the kind of framework that the Saskatchewan Association of rural Municipalities could make good use of? Would that fit in with the things that you had been looking for when the changes were originally made?
May 2nd, 2018 / 12:35 p.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
I think it's a good first step. As I mentioned, we did meet with Minister LeBlanc in Regina. He did mention to us that the government was looking at a low, medium, and high risk categorization. We simply need some better definitions. Perhaps it requires more consultation, but we need some better definitions of what the government actually means by low, medium, and high risk.
Low risk to us, I suppose, would be day-to-day operations, but we're not exactly sure about that yet.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Sure. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Thomas and the group in North Vancouver. We heard comments from some of the other witnesses about the purposes section. First of all, we were pleased that our recommendation that there be a purposes section was included in the legislation. We've heard from others that the purposes section should include restoration as part of the purposes of the act, but they also indicated that the rebuilding of stock should also be included as a purpose in this act. Do you agree with that?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Director, Economic Development, Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Yes. I'm going to ask Bridget Doyle, one of my team here, to respond to the questions.
12:35 p.m.
Bridget Doyle Natural Resources Planner, Treaty, Lands and Resources Department, Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Yes, we would absolutely agree with that. We included restoration and reconciliation as our top priorities for the act, but we have included in our written brief recommendations for strengthening the rebuilding of stocks. From Tsleil-Waututh's perspective, restoration would include the rebuilding of stocks in our broad view of what restoration could entail.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bonnett, you're right about the devil being in the details. One of the things that came through to us in our earlier deliberations on the past changes to the act was the details of the relationship with DFO people on the ground. That's not something that you find in legislation or even in regulations. It has more to do with those on-the-ground relationships. How do you see those going forward, particularly through this legislative process?
12:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I think right off the top we've seen a difference in the relationship. We had Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials come in and meet with our whole board at our last meeting in early April. It almost seemed like there was a difference in attitude within the department on how they deal with the people they're serving. With the fact that there's some extra money allocated for Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials and that the intent of the act talks about consultation with affected partners, I think it's very different.
It almost seemed in the past that you had DFO in their offices in one corner doing what they thought was right, without having consideration to what the implication would be at the ground level. I think it's a change in attitude that is most important.
I see wording in the act where it appears there's been recognition, not only with your committee's report, but also with some of the legislation that's put forward, about building in this relationship between affected parties and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans so that the end goal of preserving fish habitat is met.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Right.
I have one final quick question for Mr. Thomas and the group.
We've heard comments that it would be good to see the guardians program or the chartered patrolman program restored to perhaps where it used to be. That was clearly a direct involvement by indigenous people across the country and in the far north.
Do you agree with that notion?
12:40 p.m.
Natural Resources Planner, Treaty, Lands and Resources Department, Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Absolutely.
We've been trying to address that at a local level for a number of years now as well. We didn't include that in our written submission just as a matter of space and time, but that's absolutely something we support.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
You have five seconds left. You did okay.
Now we'll move on to the Conservative side.
Mr. Miller, you are going to start and then share your time with Mr. Arnold. Correct?