Evidence of meeting #130 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was habitat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Ms. Barron.
We'll now go to Mr. Bragdon for five minutes or less, but he's not here.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. Lapointe, you spoke of the harm to salmon stocks from barriers to migration and the destruction of habitat and about the success that north Pacific states in the United States have had in growing their ocean-run fish stocks by reducing barriers.
Do these fish migrate into Canadian waters, these stocks that have had successful growth? Are they coming into B.C. waters?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
Some do, particularly along the Columbia River.
There is a great success story in Canada from the Okanagan Nation Alliance, an indigenous group there that has restored hundreds of thousands of sockeye to the Okanagan River by restoring habitat and removing barriers. That would benefit from some of the work done in the U.S. on fish passage, but not necessarily those smaller barriers.
The 10,000 in Washington state are mostly road stream crossings, and they would typically be on the smaller streams that don't go all the way up into Canada. It's the large dams that need fish passage to get fish into Canada through transboundary waters.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Would those fish overwinter in Canadian waters? For example, would they migrate to Canadian waters to feed in the ocean?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
No. On the west coast, those salmon don't do a two-way migration. They return to land at the end of their life to spawn once and die. I guess some steelhead might return to the ocean, but I don't believe many steelhead would be directly affected by those 10,000 projects in Washington state.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
What I'm asking is this: When the smolts and fry leave those rivers, would they migrate through Canadian waters as they head to their feeding grounds?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
For those transboundary rivers, if the adults make it to Canada and lay their eggs, the smolts will be migrating downstream. Some of them will move up into, for instance, those small side tributaries that may have barriers. Chinook salmon will do that, in order to overwinter in those side tributaries. There would be some benefits in that case, but not all salmon species have that behaviour.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Okay.
Where I was going was here: Do these salmon, which go into the Pacific Ocean, ever come into Canadian waters, where they would come into contact with fish farms?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
That's a good question.
Again, most of my focus is on freshwater habitat. There are certainly out-migrating salmon from Canadian waters that pass fish farms, as well as the adults as they move back in. That is a concern. Disease transfer and the habitat effects of those fish farms are conservation concerns, but I'm not positive about those affected by the fish passage projects directly.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
In British Columbia, there has been very little work done, compared with the U.S. What do you think might have the most positive impact on growing wild salmon stocks? Would it be habitat restoration in the magnitude of what the Americans have done, or would it be removing salmon farms?
What would the most positive impact be on growing wild salmon stocks in B.C.?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
I think that's a challenging question.
There's an example in the central coast region of British Columbia. Indigenous organizations there and the Pacific Salmon Foundation looked at the question of what the best things would be to create the best benefits for salmon and what threats could be addressed most cost-effectively. I know that addressing barriers is one of the three. I don't recall what the other two are, so I can't compare how it ranks alongside those other two.
I can send you that report and follow up on that question.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Gratton, who spoke of the desire of the mining industry to improve fish habitat.
With a 50% increase in personnel at DFO and a 100% budget increase since 2015, are you finding any swifter response to habitat restoration? We had that massive increase in budget and personnel at DFO.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
To Nick's point, the department is not providing any evidence one way or the other. We don't know.
We do know things are taking longer. We know that because it's taking longer.... Certain things like that would help habitat. To Nick's earlier point, some minor projects might have a negative impact on fish, but some actually benefit fish. However, we don't know, because they're not reporting this information.
We have a bit of a black box, so I can't say one way or the other. One must assume that, in the absence of.... I'm not optimistic.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Small.
We'll go to Mr. Hardie for five minutes or less.
November 25th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, everybody.
Mr. Gratton, I'll start with you.
The oil and gas sector presented us with the ongoing problem of orphaned and abandoned oil wells. We had a similar situation up in the Yukon with the Eagle Mine, which apparently failed and dumped arsenic into the Yukon River.
Can you speak about the challenge of old mines that are mined out and just left there? What kinds of ongoing protections do you think we need to see reflected in the Fisheries Act?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
The Eagle Mine is not an old mine. It's a new mine that failed.
Current regulations do not allow for new mines to be developed without providing some form of insurance to allow for proper reclamation once the mine is closed. All provinces will impose varying forms of bonding and so on to ensure that if a mine were to fail, the province would have the resources for reclamation in their absence.
Of course, mines themselves have an obligation to reclaim. They have to develop closure plans, which are reviewed every five years. There's a practice in our industry called “progressive reclamation”, which is that you try to reclaim as you go.
Prior to the 1970s or 1980s when these measures started to come into place, we used to build mines and then leave them, so there is a legacy of old and abandoned mines across the country. There have been efforts over the years to go back and restore some of them. One of the best examples is the Britannia Mine in British Columbia. I don't know if you're familiar with what's been done there, but it's an amazing story of how Howe Sound has really bounced back.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Gratton.
Yes, I'm quite familiar. I used to live in Squamish, so I travelled back and forth by it every day.
Mr. Lapointe, I have a similar question for you, actually, in a way.
When we look at protecting wild fish stocks, particularly salmon stocks, what is your organization's position on the management of the pinniped population in B.C.?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
We don't have a position statement on that, so I can't really comment on behalf of the Wildlife Federation on that.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Well, you should maybe work one up, because we may come looking for some support as we try to deal with a very difficult situation that involves our international relationships with the States and with Europe, where they do manage their pinniped populations, but they don't want us to, for some strange reason.
Let's talk about, basically, the focus that the DFO takes. They have two different things that they do. One involves a lot of attention to fishing effort. They put limits on catches. There's also, of course, the enforcement aspect. The enforcement aspect is seen to be underwhelming in terms of its efficacy on the west coast particularly. Then there's also habitat protection, which has already been alluded to. It's been mixed up with provincial responsibilities, etc.
What's a good balance there? Should we actually look at the kind of investments to do it all, and what do you expect the province to do as we modify the Fisheries Act?
Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation
Whatever the balance is, it doesn't exist right now.
Mr. Small mentioned fishermen being charged for minuscule quota overshoots. When we look at the habitat protection provision enforcement of the Fisheries Act, we see that until two years ago, over the last 10 years, there had been fewer than 10 charges or about 10 charges laid in total. That's not per year, but in total over those 10 years, across Canada, for habitat protection violations or habitat violations. Commercial fishers are frustrated that they're getting charged for having the wrong mesh size or catching a few extra fish. Meanwhile, the people who are destroying the habitat that supports those fisheries are not being charged.
The last two years have seen that increase to 10 to 15 charges per year, but there's a concept in environmental management that any sort of environmental law without enforcement is meaningless. Really, right now, there's no concern and there's no fear for anyone who's developing in and around water that they're going to be charged under the Fisheries Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hardie. You only have three seconds left, so you can hardly get a question in or an answer.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lapointe, I listened to the answers you gave to my colleagues. They were most interesting. It is important that the bill we are working on provide for tighter oversight of offences and an increase in penalties for violations. That's my understanding.
In your opinion, would this be the sole remit of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Should other departments be involved in your process?
