Fisheries Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Vincent Leys]

Every case can be slightly different, but my guess would be that it's mostly in terms of the structural strength of the wharf. For the deteriorated infrastructure you'd have old timber and deteriorated concrete and the like, which would be a lot more prone to wave action, whereas for new construction you might have steel members or brand new concrete that resists waves and flooding a lot better.

It's not necessarily the height, but the structural strength. Where the height comes into play is with respect to damage on infrastructure that's on top of the wharf, like your bait sheds and your traps, and the electrical systems and the like.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, as that's very helpful.

Ms. Fuller, very briefly I have an existential question. As we move towards climate resistance, better infrastructure, do you see a future in which, with sufficient investment and engagement with the fishers, we can have a thriving fishing industry alongside safe and protected and resistant harbours?

[Susanna Fuller]

I do, absolutely.

I think one of the key things we need to look at is the climate vulnerability of major species. We are seeing species shift where they're occurring, and people often fish the species that are not too far from their wharf or from their home. I think we need to look at where species are moving and then where we expect them to be in 20, 30, 40 and 50 years.

We already know that the Gulf of Maine is warming very quickly. There are no more lobster fisheries in some parts of the United States. That's a species that is moving farther north.

We need to look at that shifting of species so we can adequately plan for the fisheries of the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that, Mr. Hanley.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. You've been extremely helpful.

Ms. Fuller, you said earlier that we had been failing to call upon the expertise of fishers and their knowledge of the area. That's exactly what I understood when I met some fishers at noon, and they told me about their familiarity with the environment and their deep-seated desire to protect the fishery.

What is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans failing to do to start a more productive conversation with fishers and to be on the same page with them? How can it improve its communications with them?

[Susanna Fuller]

Okay. I think I got that. My French is okay, but I will respond in English.

What probably needs to happen are real community-by-community discussions on what fishermen are seeing in terms of climate change, how they see themselves adapting and also what they need to adapt. Those aren't really happening.

In the national adaptation strategy, the fishing industry wasn't really included until the very end. I don't think that was on purpose—I just think that dealing with climate adaptation is a giant task—but for our coastal provinces we really need to speak to the people on the water about what they're seeing and over what time frame, and to start to adjust in using that knowledge.

That being said, I know fishermen are very busy and have a lot of things to do on top of just going fishing, which is a huge job, so I would look to organizations like the federation of independent fish harvesters to ask how those consultations and that outreach can be done most effectively. It needs to start being done on an annual basis, because otherwise we're going to be faced with these constant changes and with just reacting to change as opposed to being proactive.

The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation would be a good place to start in trying to engage fishers more in the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens. There are only about 13 seconds left. It's hardly time to get your next question in, let alone get an answer.

We'll now go to Mr. Bachrach for two and a half minutes or less, please.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue with you, Ms. Fuller. You spoke about some of the ecological changes we're seeing and will continue to see. We've also heard at this meeting about the need to invest fairly significantly in coastal infrastructure.

I'm struck by your comments about the lack of an overarching federal strategy for the marine economy and for coastal infrastructure. How do all these pieces.... Why is it so important that we consider this as a system as opposed to looking at the different parts separately?

[Susanna Fuller]

Well, one reason is that our coasts are and have been resilient. We have relied on them to protect us from the ocean and storm surge. Think of ecosystems like salt marshes, eelgrass beds and kelp beds, which all attenuate the impacts of storm surge and sea level rise. It's about thinking how we best protect them and allow those natural ecosystems to help our coasts be as resilient as possible.

With regard to the overall framework, Canada has a lot of bits and pieces, but we are not dealing with coasts and oceans comprehensively and, as well, we're not dealing with them actively with the provinces. We really need a much more comprehensive framework that allows us to be reactive and have money available when things like Fiona happen, but also to really think forward into how we protect spaces. How do we start to manage the retreat of communities? How do we plan for the fisheries of the future? How do we make sure our marine industries are encouraged to be a part of emissions reduction?

That whole knitting together of the bits and pieces, which we have in different policies across Canada, just hasn't been done for the ocean. We have the longest coastline in the world, so it seems to me that we should probably start to put that together into an overall climate strategy for our coasts and oceans, which to date doesn't exist. That would be an excellent endeavour that Canada should undertake.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Really quickly, Ms. Eyquem, you talked about how historically we've relied mostly on protection as a strategy, and how we also have avoidance, accommodation and retreat. I see retreat as being at the other end of the spectrum. Do we have adequate guidance on when to choose these different strategies? When do we stop protecting infrastructure and start retreating?

[Joanna Eyquem]

That's a great question. We haven't really started the discussion in Canada, whereas in the U.K. we have shoreline management plans over the whole of the coastline, with a strategy for each coast that was consulted on with the populations. We have a long way to go here.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

There's no doubt Ms. Barron is living through you today.

We'll now go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've heard testimony about the money that was spent by former governments and by the current government. The government has talked about adaptation and resilience, but we haven't seen that. We heard testimony earlier this week or last week about a small craft harbour that was rebuilt two years ago but was destroyed by the storm.

Spending money isn't the answer. It's in design and engineering, and I think that's your purview, Mr. Leys, more than anything.

The question is for you, Mr. Leys. How can small craft harbour construction or repair progress if the tendering authority does not have the required funding secured? Is it possible, and if so, how?

[Vincent Leys]

That's a good question.

If funding is not available, you want to start out with a project that will allow for future upgrades.

For example, if funding is not available to put your wharf at a certain elevation, you want to at least make sure the structural members to support it are strong enough that it can be raised in the future.

If funding is not available for a big enough breakwater, you want to make sure it is wide enough and you have enough clearance in front, so you can augment it later as funding becomes available, and that has to be incorporated in a long-term plan.

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

Our study is looking at the effects of hurricane Fiona and the immediate needs. For harbours that have been impacted by hurricane Fiona and that need to move forward with engineering and project tendering, is that possible if the funding has not been secured?

[Vincent Leys]

You would want to look at the design options with and without the impacts of hurricane Fiona included, and at the costing, to see whether the costing can accommodate the upgrade. If it cannot, that means it's vulnerable to future storms, such as Fiona.

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

Okay. I don't think I'm getting the answer to the question I'm asking.

[Vincent Leys]

I'm sorry about that.

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

I forgot to mention that I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Bragdon as well.

I'll move on to Mr. Barron. In your opinion, if harvesters miss part or all of the season because infrastructure like harbours is not safe and functional, what will be the resulting impact on the local economies and the communities that rely on them?

[Michael Barron]

Depending on the amount of time lost and on which fishery it is in and how many vessels will be displaced, it could be substantial. There are 29 boats that tie up to one of the government wharves within my town, and it's fully subscribed. The other harbour within the community is also fully subscribed.

Where are 29 vessels going to go? They'll get a chance to fish, but where are they going to go for shelter? Where are they going to tie up? It would be a significant loss to the community.

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

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Bragdon now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have a minute and 40 seconds.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with you, Mr. Barron. We hear a lot about taxes and taxes in response to hurricanes, but no one has really answered the question on how a tax stops a hurricane.

Beyond the “tax solves everything” approach, can you tell us, practically, in alignment with what we've heard from others from the region, what steps we can take in adaptation to make sure our coastal communities are better prepared for the inevitable storms that are coming as a result of climate change and what we're seeing? Beyond the “tax addresses everything” approach, what are the practical steps we as a government can take to address the immediate needs of our coastal communities as far as infrastructure goes?

[Michael Barron]

Are you asking how we could build it better?