Evidence of meeting #33 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
There's clearly disagreement on the relevance here, and you can make a decision on that. I'm sorry, but I disagree with Mr. Morrissey. The motion is about the production of documents, not about the fishery itself, so I don't think he's correct in his logic there.
Maybe you could give us your decision.
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
We could have a wonderful debate on logic that comes from the other side.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
There's a wide latitude in the debate on motions. As I mentioned before, all members make their best efforts to make sure their comments are relevant to the motion.
I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Klassen to continue with comments that are relevant to the motion.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue:
its risk management strategies;
its allocation of departmental resources; and
its fisheries management practices and procedures, including monitoring, counting of stocks, forecasting, and enforcement.
The only matter on which I am invited to make recommendations to the Government of Canada relates to improving the future sustainability of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser River. I must interpret that directive in a manner consistent with the other paragraphs of the Terms of Reference, which direct me to consider DFO's policies and practices with respect to the Fraser River sockeye fishery and to make independent findings of fact regarding the causes of the decline of the Fraser River sockeye stocks.
The scope of my recommendations for improving the future sustainability of the Fraser River sockeye fishery will be informed by the breadth of my fact-finding mandate, and by the context in which that mandate was created—the decline of Fraser River sockeye stocks since the early 1990s. It is that decline that the Government of Canada seeks to reverse by instituting measures to improve the future sustainability of the Fraser River sockeye fishery. I am invited to make recommendations to that end. The Terms of Reference specifically invite me to recommend changes to DFO's policies, practices, and procedures in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. However, the word “including” leaves open the possibility of making recommendations on other matters as well.
Although the Terms of Reference are silent on the matter of Aboriginal rights and title, this Commission of Inquiry respectfully acknowledges the special relationship that many First Nations have with Fraser River sockeye salmon. They have fished these waters for sustenance for millennia and, through their traditions, ceremonies, and traditional ecological knowledge, bring a unique perspective to bear on this Inquiry's work.
Aboriginal people also possess a unique legal status in relation to Fraser River sockeye, based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states “[t]he existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” For example, in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized for the first time...an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, and stated that such a right would be treated with priority, subject only to conservation.
In addition, several historical and modern treaties negotiated between the Crown and First Nations refer to Aboriginal access and participation in fisheries, and therefore must be considered as part of the legal framework underlying the management of Fraser River sockeye.
Aboriginal and treaty rights are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, Legal framework.
In order to develop an evidentiary basis for making the findings of fact and recommendations mandated by the Terms of Reference, this Commission acquired information from a variety of sources.
Taking direction from the Terms of Reference, I published an Interim Report in October 2010, setting out my views on any previous examinations, investigations, or reports deemed relevant to the Inquiry, and on Canada's responses to them. Previous reports were an important source of information. Over the past three decades, there have been dozens of reports on the Pacific fisheries, primarily focusing on DFO's management of the fisheries and its activities respecting harvesting, protection of habitat, protection of wild salmon stocks, and aquaculture. Some, such as Dr. Peter Pearse's 1982 report, were sweeping in nature, examining the condition, management, and utilization of all Pacific coast fisheries. Others, such as the Honourable Bryan Williams' 2005 report, which examined only the 2004 Fraser River sockeye salmon return, focused on a single event.
In my October 2010 Interim Report, entitled Fraser River Sockeye Salmon: Past Declines. Future Sustainability?, I discussed 26 of those reports, and summarized the recommendations contained in them and the federal government’s initial responses to them. Under the Commission’s Terms of Reference, I may consider the findings of these previous reports, as I consider appropriate and relevant, and give them any weight, including accepting them as conclusive.
In my Interim Report, I also discussed the input received by the Commission in response to its June 2010 discussion paper, which outlined the salmon management and technical and scientific issues the Commission intended to investigate, as well as our public forums in 10 coastal and Fraser River communities and our 14 site visits in 12 British Columbia communities. A more detailed description of the Commission’s activities before and after the release of the Interim Report can be found in Volume 3, Chapter 5, Commission process.
Throughout the Inquiry, members of the public were invited to express their views on issues related to the Commission’s mandate by mail, by making a public submission on the Commission’s website, or by commenting on another person’s submission. The Commission received approximately 900 submissions, which are referred to throughout this Report.
The Commission undertook a scientific research program, directed by our in-house fisheries research consultant, to investigate possible causes of the decline of Fraser River sockeye. Terms of reference were developed for a series of technical reports, which were contracted out to technical researchers knowledgeable in the respective fields on which they reported. In total, the researchers produced 15 technical reports. Under the Commission’s Rules for Procedure and Practice...I may consider these technical reports in making my findings of fact and recommendations. The technical reports are discussed in Volume 2 of this Report; executive summaries are included as Appendix B to Volume 2; and each report is reproduced in full in the DVD accompanying this Report.
In April 2010, I made 21 grants of standing for participation in the Commission. Many of these grants of standing were shared among applicants who originally applied individually. In total, 53 individuals, groups, and organizations were included in these grants of standing.
Between October 2010 and September 2011, I conducted the evidentiary hearings, which were open to the media and public. Most of the hearings were held at the Federal Court in downtown Vancouver, BC. Hearings were reopened in December 2011 to consider emerging evidence on infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus. Each witness testified under oath or affirmation, either alone or as a member of a panel. Each was questioned by Commission counsel and cross-examined by participants or participants’ counsel. Witnesses included DFO senior management and employees, officials from the Province of British Columbia and local governments, independent scientists, conservationists, representatives of the aquaculture industry, and representatives of the commercial, sport, and Aboriginal fisheries. The authors of the Commission’s technical reports were also questioned and cross-examined on their reports.
The Commission held 133 days of evidentiary hearings, during which 179 witnesses testified, 2,145 documents were filed as exhibits, and 14,166 pages of transcript were generated. Exhibits and transcripts were posted on the Commission’s website, giving the media and public full access to our proceedings. All hearing transcripts and the exhibits referred to in this Report are included in the accompanying DVD.
Commission counsel also prepared 21 policy and practice reports on a wide range of legal topics and on numerous salmon management policies and practices. These reports were circulated to all participants in advance of evidentiary hearings on the corresponding topics, and were also filed as exhibits. They are part of the DVD included with this Report. Under the Commission’s Rules for Procedure and Practice, I may consider these reports and the documents they reference in making my findings of fact and recommendations.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings, I received extensive written and oral final submissions from participants respecting the matters into which I have been directed to inquire, including recommendations for improving the future sustainability of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. In April and May 2012, I invited participants to provide supplementary submissions, if they wished, on how their submissions were affected by proposed changes to a number of pieces of legislation relevant to the work of the Commission contained in Bill C-38....
All the sources of information and evidence discussed above have formed the basis of this Report, including my findings of fact and recommendations.
My Terms of Reference direct me to develop recommendations for improving the sustainability of the Fraser River sockeye fishery. I interpret this as direction to consider the Fraser River sockeye fishery as a whole. However, this fishery is multifaceted and comprises three distinct harvest sectors: the Aboriginal communal fishery, the general commercial fishery, and the recreational fishery. Here, I provide a brief introduction to each of these harvest sectors; they are discussed in greater detail throughout my Report.
Aboriginal communities have been fishing Fraser River sockeye for all of living memory. While British Columbia is home to a diverse population of Aboriginal cultures, I heard that many groups share a sense of cultural identity deeply rooted in the salmon fishery. This identity includes a profound respect for salmon, which are sometimes viewed as relatives or kin as opposed to simply as fish. Respect for salmon is passed down from Aboriginal elders to younger generations and is instilled in the laws of Aboriginal nations. Several witnesses told me that Aboriginal participation in the Fraser sockeye fishery is a vital means to preserve Aboriginal cultural practices and traditions. For example, Councillor June Quipp of the Cheam Indian Band told me that the salmon fishery is a part of her community’s “spirit,” and Chief Fred Sampson of the Siska Indian Band told me that his community’s cultural, physical, and spiritual well-being are all dependent on the salmon fishery.
Aboriginal communal fishing licences authorize fishing for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. In respect of fishing for these purposes, Aboriginal groups enjoy a priority of access to Fraser River sockeye, subject to conservation.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Ernie Klassen:
In addition, some Aboriginal communal fishing licences may authorize fishing—
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, I think this is now the third time we've asked for relevance. I know you've asked the member to make sure his remarks are relevant. He keeps reading from the same report from 17 years ago.
Is this the standard for relevance we want to apply for the rest of this Parliament at the committee?
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
On a point of order, Chair, the precedent has been set in other committees about the relevancy to debate material within committees. My colleague is speaking to the context of the motion put forward by the member. If he did not want to hear it, then he could have chosen another topic to move on. The subject matter is the salmon, the open pen and the whole context of that on the west coast of British Columbia, which is an extremely important period, so it is very relevant.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I'd like to speak to the same point of order, Mr. Chair.
With respect to Mr. Morrissey, the practices of other committees don't bind this committee. You as chair are the master of this room. I think you decide what standard of relevance you want to apply, and that will reflect on this committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you.
As I said before, it's important to keep the comments relevant to the topic at hand, to the motion that Mr. Gunn brought forward, Mr. Klassen. I want to provide that recommendation again. That recommendation is for all committee members to make sure we are keeping our comments to the matter at hand.
Mr. Morrissey.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Could you then tell us what the subject matter is that's currently being discussed? Is it west coast salmon and the conditions of it, the whole open end? It's pretty broad.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Mr. Gunn did read the matter of the report. It's related to documents on the aquaculture transition, which, of course, for members who may not be aware.... I know that the Cohen commission was, in fact, recommending actions related to aquaculture.
I don't want to get into that myself, but I understand it's connected from that point of view.
I'll go to Mr. Small on the same point of order.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Mr. Chair, you cautioned Mr. Klassen to stay relevant. It seemed that you questioned his relevance yourself by the tone of your voice.
Do you agree or disagree that what Mr. Klassen has been reading is relevant, and if it's not, will you shut him down?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I wasn't going to comment on what is and isn't relevant to it, knowing from what is in the report myself.... I just want to make sure that all members are going to keep their comments relevant to the motions that we have at hand.
With that, I'm going to hand the floor back over to Mr. Klassen.
Actually, seeing that the clock is at 6:01 p.m., as mentioned before, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.