Wabauskang First Nation P.O. Box 339 , ON P0V 1T0

Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans The Senate of Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4

December 30, 2016

RE: Review and Commentary on the Fisheries Act

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find attached an initial Brief Submission on the 2012 changes made to the Fisheries Act. Please note that the timeframes for this submission did not allow for engagement of our band members. This engagement is a critical component of our community’s Consultation Protocol. Further comments will follow once Wabauskang First Nation has had opportunity to engage with our band members to ensure that they are able to make informed comments on the changes to this Act.

Sincerely,

Ryan Haines Manager Wabauskang Resource Office

Wabauskang First Nation Initial Brief Submission Changes to the Fisheries Act

Recommendations

1. Ministerial Authorizations -The issuance of a project specific Ministerial authorization with conditions provides clear direction for proponents on steps to be taken to protect fish and fish habitat. This is a strength of the current Fisheries Act when compared to the Act prior to the 2012 changes and we would like to see these authorizations expanded to include existing development activities which are negatively impacting fish and fish habitat. The expansion of the Ministerial authorizations will be more thoroughly explored in the threats section of this brief submission.

2. Changes to the Fish Species that are Afforded Protection - One of the weaknesses or shortcomings of the changes to the Fisheries Act is the change in protection of harm to fish to exclude any fish that are not part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery. Not only is this change inconsistent with Anishinabe values of protecting all species and resources, it also ignores the complexity of natural ecosystems and the interconnectedness/importance of all species in a healthy environment. This could be addressed if Section 32 and Section 35 of the Fisheries Act be returned to the Act using the wording that was found prior to the changes made in 2012.

3. Lack of Support/Personnel for Fisheries Protection Program– Government regulations and legislation is only of any value if the tools and resources are committed to enforcing them. While not found in the Fisheries Act directly, the drastic cutbacks in staffing in northwestern by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the past decade make any changes to the Fisheries Act a predominately paper exercise. There are currently no substantive resources for the enforcement of any items or changes made to the Fisheries Act and none of these discussions will be of any value if substantive resources are not committed to enforcement of this Act. There is also a complete lack of resources and support in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to address the federal government’s duty to consult and accommodate on fisheries issues in northwestern Ontario.

4. Self-Assessment is Not Effective – It is felt that the proponent self-assessment as part of the review and decision making process is not effective for the protection of fish and fish habitat. Allowing an individual, with a vested and/or economic interest in the project, to determine if fish and/or fish habitat will be impacted by an activity is extremely problematic. Add in the absence of a requirement that the proponent demonstrate any knowledge, proficiency, or experience in the identification or protection of fish or fish habitat, and this method of screening projects is completely unacceptable if the aim is to protect fish and fish habitat from serious harm. However, it is felt that the Operational Statements (which preceded Self-Assessment) were no more effective in addressing this issue. It is felt that the identification of fish habitat and recognition of potential serious harm to fish or fish habitat can only be effectively conducted by an individual that has demonstrated sufficient expertise and experience to carry out this responsibility.

1

Wabauskang First Nation Initial Brief Submission Changes to the Fisheries Act

5. Fisheries Act Authorizations Should to Be Expanded to Include Existing Development Activities One of the most significant threats to fish and fish habitat in our community’s traditional territory is hydroelectric developments. Fisheries Act authorizations provide a clear and effective tool for protecting our waters from these threats. However, the most serious threats to our fisheries are not from proposed or future development activities, but developments that already exist. The most obvious example of this is the protection of fish and fish habitat from impacts of existing hydroelectric developments. While the province of Ontario does have Waterpower Agreements for these developments, the province is in a perpetual conflict of interest, usually both as a shareholder/owner of the hydroelectric facility as well as a proponent of “green” energy. This conflict of interest is an issue right across Canada as provinces are often owners of the hydroelectric facilities as well as responsible for negotiation and enforcement of the water management plans that govern them. For these reasons, we find the existing protections in place for hydroelectric facilities to be both unacceptable and ineffective at protecting fish and fish habitat. We feel that there is an excellent opportunity for the Fisheries Act to ensure the protection of fish and fish habitat from serious harm resulting from the operation of existing hydroelectric facilities. In order to achieve this, we propose the following: As indicated by DFO in materials regarding the recent changes to the Fisheries Act, “the amendments provide the Minister with the ability to designate ecologically significant areas for fish.” Due to their locations and nature, the areas immediately downstream of most hydroelectric facilities warrant this designation as they are, almost without exception, critical fish spawning areas. Once the areas downstream of the hydroelectric facilities have been designated as ecologically significant for fish, the federal government would issue Fisheries Act Authorizations clearly outlining the requirements for the protection of the fish and fish habitat downstream of the hydroelectric facility. These requirements, to be found in the Authorizations for each hydroelectric facility, are readily available in the scientific literature (i.e. spawning temperatures, gestation periods, flow requirements) for all species of fish. The requirements, once placed in the Fisheries Act Authorizations, would provide protection of the fish and fish habitat in a legal and political manner that would satisfy our concerns regarding the ineffectiveness and conflicts of interest that exist under the current framework.

6. Cumulative Impacts Are Not Taken Into Account – Water quality, including its importance for fish and fish habitat, is a top environmental priority of Wabauskang. Our community has initiated the Cedar River Watershed Monitoring Program to ensure protection of water quality in our territory. Our community history includes living on the Wabigoon River at Quibell and experiencing the health impacts of increases in mercury levels that have also impacted our sister community of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Mercury is a contaminant that has serious cumulative impacts on both fish and human health. It is felt that the Fisheries Act is far too narrow in scope and should be expanded to consider the cumulative impacts of proposed and current development activities on fish habitat and fish health. Including cumulative impacts on fish and fish habitat as well as human health will help to ensure that the water is protected for future generations.

2

Wabauskang First Nation Initial Brief Submission Changes to the Fisheries Act

Wabauskang Resource Office Description

The Wabauskang Resource Office has three main priority areas to help meet the resource needs of the community members on Wabauskang First Nation. These priority areas are as follows:

A. Resource Development Activities – The Wabauskang Resource Office acts as the point of contact for proposed development activities in the Wabauskang First Nation’s traditional territory. It is the role of this office to make sure that community members are informed of any development activities; that community members have the ability to effectively communicate any concerns and/or identify potential opportunities; and ensure that community feedback is provided both to Chief and Council and the proponent of the development activities.

B. Environmental Programs – The Wabauskang Resource Office works with Wabauskang First Nation band members to identify environmental concerns and/or priorities in the community’s traditional territory. Once priorities have been identified, the resource office seeks and obtains the resources required to implement programs that monitor and/or address the environmental concerns of the community.

C. Employment/Training Support – The Wabauskang Resource Office assists community members in obtaining financial, professional, or training support to allow members to take advantage of employment, career, or business opportunities in the community’s traditional territory.

3