Fisheries Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 135 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Before we proceed, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Please address all comments through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 8, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the Fisheries Act review.

Welcome to our witnesses for the first panel.

We have, in person, from the Forest Products Association of Canada, Mr. Scott Jackson, director of conservation biology, and Kate Lindsay, senior vice-president and chief sustainability officer.

We have with us Mr. Darren Porter, spokesperson for the Fundy United Federation.

On Zoom, we have Mr. Larry Thomas, manager, environment and sustainability, from the Canadian Cattle Association.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have up to five minutes or less for your opening statement.

Yes, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm curious about when you're going to rule on the procedural issue around the question of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

It won't be today.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It won't be today.

With that, I'd like to just give notice of a motion. It is as follows: “That the committee ask the Speaker to investigate the potential breach of privilege by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in providing misleading information during the appearance before the committee on December 4, and that the committee report this issue to the House.”

It's just notice of a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Lindsay, you have the floor.

[Kate Lindsay, Senior Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee.

The Forest Products Association of Canada, or FPAC, is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you on this important topic.

Just to provide a little context, when it comes to forestry and the activities that we do across Canada, particularly when it comes to fish and to fish habitat, the vast majority of forestry-related activities include building and deactivating roads to access operations. This requires the installation, maintenance—and, in the case of temporary roads, removal—of culverts and bridges. That's really what we're here to talk to you about today.

Prior to the act changing in 2012, we were under the HADD provisions, which we're back to now. DFO had been working quite diligently with natural resource sectors to develop compliance support tools, particularly for routine activities that were considered low risk to fish and to fish habitat. These tools included operational statements, and they were developed back in the 2000s. They were focused on avoiding harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, otherwise known as HADD.

In 2012, as you know, the federal government made revisions to the Fisheries Act, and despite allegations to the contrary, the 2012 version of the legislation did not reduce the operating standards employed by our sector—the forestry sector. Instead, forestry companies continued to implement a high degree of rigour in activities in and around water, in large part due to provincial standards, which did not change, and due to independent certification systems and company-specific operating procedures.

When the act was subsequently revised again in 2019, it was done under the premise of restoring lost protections. What this resulted in was essentially a return to the previous version of section 35 HADD provisions. However, unfortunately, we lost all of the compliance support tools for routine activities that were developed prior to 2012. We had raised concerns that there would be delays in developing all of these new compliance tools, which unfortunately has been our experience in the last five years. This has resulted in a lack of predictability for our industry, costly delays and an unforeseen administrative burden. These delays are not resulting in better outcomes for fish and for fish habitat.

I raise these concerns to emphasize a key point. The lack of progress on behalf of DFO in implementing the 2019 Fisheries Act is really not acceptable, and it falls short of commitments made by the government when the new act came into force. We believe that the department has the institutional knowledge and experience to develop these codes and regulations. We appreciate that DFO has been engaged quite broadly, for five years, in talking to people through its Let's Talk Fish Habitat platform, but it's time to move from talking about it to taking action on tools to support fish habitat.

I will allocate the remainder of our time to my colleague, Scott Jackson, who can elaborate.

Thank you.

[Scott Jackson, Director, Conservation Biology, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thanks, Kate.

I'd like to add my thanks, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity today.

Specifically I'd like to draw your attention to two commitments that DFO provided back in 2019, when the legislation was revised, and these are increased certainty for industry and reduced regulatory burden on industry.

Unfortunately, after five years, we find ourselves in a position in which neither of these commitments has been met. I do want to be clear that the revised legislation does have some very important tools that can be used if, and I underscore if, properly implemented. These include codes of practice that are avoidance measures. If you follow a preset series of conditions, there is no harmful impact on fish or fish habitat and therefore no need for an authorization.

The second one, as Kate mentioned, is the prescribed works and waters regulation. This is essentially a class authorization and, in DFO's own words, would help identify routine classes of works that would be allowed to proceed without a site-specific review from DFO, providing proponents comply with mandatory enforceable conditions. It is an efficiency mechanism.

Now, while there has been some progress with regard to the codes of practice, it has been insufficient, and, unfortunately, it appears as if there has been no progress whatsoever on the prescribed works and waters regulation. Again, I want to emphasize that it has been five years. Now these—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that. You can submit the rest of your statement in writing, because the time is up.

[Scott Jackson]

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Porter for five minutes or less, please.

[Darren Porter, Spokesperson, Fundy United Federation]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee.

Good day. My name is Darren Porter. I'm a commercial fisher representing the Fundy United Federation, a group of commercial fishers for multispecies. I am recognized for my work in collaborative science initiatives, as a consultant to tidal power, Mi'kmaq and commercial fisheries. I work over 300 days a year in the marine environment. I bring a deep understanding of the waters.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. It is important to note that much of this review has involved input from lobbyists representing industries other than fishing, many seeking unrestrained access to the ocean resources.

I have a few important things I want to highlight today. The first and most important is that the purpose of the act must be updated to ensure the protection of the fisheries, not just the management and control of the fisheries.

Second, we want “the fisheries” to be added to the factors that the minister “shall” consider, specifically within the subsection 34.1(1) factors. The current reference to fisheries “productivity” among the factors that the minister shall consider is insufficient on its own to protect the fishers who may be negatively affected.

We want the bias removed from how the Fisheries Act is applied and enforced. It is my understanding that there have been only a handful of habitat convictions made under the act across Canada over the last decade. Where habitat-related convictions are almost non-existent, activities other than fishing essentially have the equivalent of impunity. A couple of examples of the lack of enforcement in the area I represent include tidal barriers on the Halfway River and at the Avon River causeway. Many of these unenforced activities have major negative conservation impacts. In contrast, commercial fishers are regularly convicted and treated as criminals for minor clerical errors, when their mistakes have no conservation impacts at all.

We request consistent and clear enforcement tools for habitat provisions, which can likely be achieved only if a dedicated group of conservation and protection officers are assigned to focus solely on fish and fish habitat provisions under the Fisheries Act.

The charge review process needs to be unbiased at all levels, from conservation officers to PPSC. The minister should be prohibited from interfering with the enforcement of the Fisheries Act.

The treatment of commercial fishers by DFO fisheries management should be investigated. The commercial fishery should be treated the same as all other clients of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A good place to start is the recent discriminatory rollout of the new management of the elver fishery in the Maritimes region.

The growing misuse or abuse of safety is emerging as a means to bypass protections for fish and fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. This needs to be addressed. One suggestion would be to establish a tool to challenge and review these situations as they arise to ensure that they are truly an emergency.

The death of fish from activities other than fishing is not currently being enforced, and neither is the duty to notify on the death of fish. We are adamant against changing the death of fish provisions from the current definition to the threshold of population-level effects that “works, undertakings and activities” by groups other than fishing are requesting. These groups have continued to enjoy impunity at the expense of our fishery for a very long time. Most are completely unauthorized, such as in my province with Nova Scotia Power.

We do not want “climate change” explicitly written into the factors the minister shall consider. The minister already has discretion for that under the factors. An important phrase to remember, especially in our area, with the Fundy FORCE and the problems between us and the fishery, is this: Just because it’s green doesn’t mean it’s blue. Not all green energy projects are equal when it comes to their impacts on fish and fish habitat. Ultimately, their effects are all deferred to the fisheries. The push to create a “pass” for the energy industry to allow them to circumvent fish and fish habitat protections has gone far past the legislative “path” that these industries already have been provided.

Further, commercial fisheries appear to be Ottawa's new sacrifice to keep the public, including rights holders and the international community, distracted while new investable industries are beginning to lease the ocean with zero effective protections in place to manage their negative effects on fish and fish habitat. The cumulative impacts of other industries disproportionately burden commercial, rights-based, recreational fisheries and the communities that depend on us, undermining the intent of this legislation.

The biggest issue with the Fisheries Act today is not the failure of the law itself but the inconsistency in its application and enforcement. I urge you to prioritize consistent, equitable enforcement of the Fisheries Act to protect our fisheries, uphold treaty rights and ensure the long-term sustainability of our marine ecosystems and coastal communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Porter.

We'll now go to Mr. Thomas for five minutes or less, please.

[Larry Thomas, Environment Manager, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian Cattle Association]

Thank you Mr. Chair, and hello committee members.

As noted, I'm Larry Thomas, manager of environment and sustainability for the Canadian Cattle Association. I'm pleased to share some of our views on the act and to provide some clarity about our members and their typical day-to-day activities as they relate to fish habitat protection. Hopefully, this will help the committee understand how the impacts of this legislation on our members can pose significant burdens as you proceed through this Fisheries Act review process.

The CCA is the representative organization of Canada's 60,000 beef farmers and ranchers. The vast majority, 98%, of beef cattle farms and ranches are small to medium-sized. They're family-owned and -operated, with an average herd size of 69 head of cattle.

These are typically tight-margined operations that are located in every Canadian province. Some of these families have been on these working landscapes for well over a century. Our producer members take care of over 35 million acres of what's left of an endangered natural native grass ecosystem, and overall, Canadian beef producers manage more than 44 million acres of tame and native grasslands.

Access to surface fresh water and water bodies is critical for the viability and sustainability of many of Canada's beef farms and ranches. Water is conveyed and used on these operations for irrigation, livestock consumption and general farm and ranch operations. In many situations, man-made agricultural structures are important features in enabling the conveyance and use of surface water supplies. These can include irrigation or livestock watering infrastructure, man-made reservoirs and ditches and more.

That often means that our members create and manage on their lands what could ultimately become fish habitat. In many cases, farms and ranches conduct their routine low-impact works and activities in and around surface waters, and thus fish habitat.

CCA has been active in the consultations with DFO since prior to the act's coming into force in 2019. Our ongoing concerns centre in part around DFO's lack of pace on the implementation regarding regulations, standards and new, expanded and improved codes of practice.

We were encouraged when DFO revised the code of practice for beaver dam removal to allow for dismantling by heavy equipment rather than by hand, as noted in the initial draft release of that code. We were unsuccessful in getting DFO to include in the code the ability to remove a beaver lodge. It should be clear that if you remove the beavers and then remove the dam but leave the beaver lodge intact, that lodge will be populated soon enough, and you're back to the costly and time-consuming business of beaver dam removal fairly soon.

We also see the need to add other codes of practice, including culvert removal and installation, not just maintenance and shoreline stabilization. With effective communications with stakeholders, we believe that even more codes can be created that would improve efficiencies across the board. The CCA continues to encourage DFO to work with provinces and territories in coordination to ensure that regulations avoid duplication and contradictory requirements and to reduce the need for landowners to hire costly consultants to help wade through a matrix of regulations.

With regard to the time and costs to acquire an authorization, we suggested that DFO create an online mechanism that is easy to understand and use. DFO recently launched a zone on their “projects near water” website, with sections on requesting a review and applying for authorization. We feel this tool remains far too complex for many of our members to utilize, and it would likely require hiring a specialist to help, again adding cost to what is usually a low-impact activity.

The CCA has conceptualized a potential process to streamline the authorization permitting process for low-impact routine works and activities as they relate to beef farms and ranches, based somewhat on what is known as the safe harbours approach.

We would be happy to provide details on that proposal if the committee desires. We have provided a summary of our recommendations in the notes the committee has, but for the sake of time, I'll stop here.

The CCA appreciates this opportunity to relay our concerns and recommendations to the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to our first round of questions.

We'll go to Mr. Arnold for six minutes or less, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here, and online as well.

I'll start out with the forestry sector. You talked some about the changes to the act in 2019 in the legislature, but the regulatory process hasn't followed from that. Has that impacted the operational sustainability of mills and forest companies? Can you elaborate on how?

[Scott Jackson]

Absolutely, it has had a significant and negative impact. It's created undue process that results in unnecessary delays to forestry operations, as Kate mentioned, primarily to access roads and water crossings.

I just want to be clear that even a very small delay in getting an authorization can have a very significant impact. A lot of forestry operations are seasonal in nature. With winter roads, when the ground has been frozen to reduce environmental impact, you may have a very short window to remove a temporary water crossing. If you're delayed by even a few weeks in getting that authorization, you could lose the entire season, and now you need to come back the next year. You need to bring the machinery back and you need to keep the roads open. That's not good for business. That is not ideal for the environment either, so, yes, there are very real and far-reaching impacts.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I'm familiar with some of the forestry operations in British Columbia. There are a lot of places where there are bridges and culverts in place—bridges, in particular—that were built from wood, logs and materials that were there. Those bridges would be very critical in a time of a wildfire outbreak.

Is that correct?

[Scott Jackson]

Absolutely. There are many forestry and non-forestry communities that are remote, with single access in and out. Any delays or inefficiencies with regard to even the upkeep of those water crossings could have significant impacts should an evacuation be necessary.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Are there cases of those bridges not being replaced because of the regulatory burden that could limit heavy equipment from getting into the backcountry to access those wildfires?

[Scott Jackson]

We know there have been instances when water crossings have not gone in. I'd have to get back to you on whether I can draw a direct line to an evacuation in the instance of a wildfire, but the potential is there.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. It's not so much communities, but even just access for early—

[Scott Jackson]

Yes, absolutely.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Moving on to the Canadian Cattle Association now, if your members' operations create a new fish habitat that was never there before, whether it be in an upland water storage dam or in a new stream, pond or dugout that becomes fish habitat, are they then under the regulations of the Fisheries Act for the protection of the fish?

[Larry Thomas]

That's my understanding, sir.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Even though they've created a new habitat, once there are fish in there, they're under all of the regulations and laws of the Fisheries Act. Is that correct?