Bill C-68 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

This enactment amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;
(b) add a purpose clause and considerations for decision-making under that Act;
(c) empower the Minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes;
(d) provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, including in ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to the modernization of the regulatory framework such as authorization of projects, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project and establishment of a public registry;
(e) empower the Governor in Council to make new regulations, including regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks and importation of fish;
(f) empower the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity;
(g) empower the Minister to make fisheries management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing for a period of 45 days to address a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish;
(h) prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care; and
(i) update and strengthen enforcement powers, as well as establish an alternative measures agreements regime; and
(j) provide for the implementation of various measures relating to the maintenance or rebuilding of fish stocks.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

Clearly not. We've been very consistent since 1995 and the original Bill C-68. This is our third appearance before a committee where we've always continually and comprehensively suggested that there is a gun problem in Canada. It might not be a criminal problem, but there is certainly a gun problem in Canada.

That gun problem is suicide and it's mental health. I get tired of the Bell let's make a statement day, where we pay lip service to depression.

Here is something that the Government of Canada can actually do with respect to reducing the tragic consequences of significant depression. I believe there is at least a good starting point in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at risk particularly of suicide. Suicidality by guns in Canada is not an urban crime problem; it's a rural indigenous peoples problem with perfectly legal weapons, such as the family rifle and the family shotgun. The diversion of discussion here towards crime and towards an outlying scientific researcher is quite disturbing.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also understand the importance of a safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation system that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has reviewed the information provided by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, including an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages.

Our government does understand that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways and to the fish and fish habitat they support. That is why we introduced Bill C-68 after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish and fish habitat while enhancing marine protection and habitat restoration. We will also strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects monitoring and policy development. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support this important and historic legislation.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague for the question.

It is my pleasure to rise today and discuss an issue that is so close to the city of Nanaimo, a place where I previously served as a city councillor, and as my wife reminded me this morning, where I was first elected over 19 years ago. How time flies.

The Government of Canada is committed to safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada understands that the Pacific Pilotage Authority completed an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages. After considering information submitted by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determined that adverse impacts to marine mammals, fish and fish habitat, and aquatic species at risk can be avoided through the application of appropriate project design and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Fisheries Act authorization is not required for this project.

Our government understands that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways, and this is especially true on our beautiful Pacific coast. Canada needs a strong Fisheries Act to protect fish and their habitat for future generations. This is why our government has introduced Bill C-68, after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish habitat, enhance marine protection and habitat restoration, and strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects, monitoring, and policy development.

We heard from thousands of Canadians, including over 200 indigenous groups, who said they want strong, fair, and clear legislation that sustains our environment and protects our oceans and waterways. If passed into law, the proposed changes would recognize that decisions could be guided by the principles of sustainability, precaution, and ecosystem management, and there would be full transparency for projects with the introduction of a public registry. Canadians would have confidence that large and small projects that impact fish and fish habitat would be managed to enhance the protection of fish and ecosystems, while industry would be provided with certainty as to when development projects required approval.

In addition to the proposed legislation, our government introduced a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping while protecting Canada's marine environment. Measures under the oceans protection plan are working to protect our coasts while promoting safe and responsible commercial use, in collaboration with coastal and indigenous communities. The oceans protection plan is helping to create economic opportunities for Canadians today, including jobs for middle-class Canadians, while protecting our waters for the benefit of future generations.

Our government understands the importance of efficient and responsible marine transportation. This includes anchorages in and near Canada's busiest ports. A specific initiative under the oceans protection plan will work with coastal communities to respond to environmental, economic, cultural, safety, and security concerns about anchorages and to propose management options.

Ensuring the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also recognize that a strong economy requires a healthy environment. For this reason, our government will invest more that $280 million to support the restoration of lost protections for fish and fish habitat. The proposed Fisheries Act will safeguard fish, protect the environment, and benefit our communities.

Finally, I can assure this House that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to working with Canadians to sustainably manage all coastal areas.

[Steve Torino]

As I said, I chaired the committee for ministers of justice from 1996 to 2006 for the Liberal government and for the next nine years for the Conservative government. Whether our policies were all accepted or not, our credibility was completely accepted, because we never told any stories. We based everything on StatsCan, on current events, and always told the truth, as our colleagues here do also.

I think that's the main item we should take a look at: the credibility of the witnesses who come and of the statements they make. The firearms community has proven itself since the beginning of Bill C-68. The daily check of our licences is probably proof of this more than anything else.

[Nicholas Winfield]

In Bill C-68, it's on page 31, and it's under “Definitions”, proposed section 42.01, and the “service area” definition is found there above proposed section 42.02. It's on page 31 of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 103 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Carrying on with our clause-by-clause, we have Mr. Mark Waddell and Mr. Nick Winfield with us today from the department. Thank you for returning. We're glad to have you back.

(On clause 53)

We will pick up where we left off, on clause 53.

We have amendment LIB-14. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was required to be here due to a motion passed by this committee. Many members may have forgotten about that. Identical motions were passed in every committee. I had a moment to explain to the chair that, whereas in the normal parliamentary rules I would have the right to present amendments that were substantive at report stage, this committee passed a motion which says I can't do that because I have an opportunity to present the motions and amendments at clause-by-clause consideration in every committee.

While report stage can only happen once a day for any particular bill, clause-by-clause can happen simultaneously in many places. Today, I find myself called before the committees to deal with Bill C-68 in the fisheries committee, Bill C-69 in the environment committee, as well as Bill C-74 in the finance committee, all at the same time, all in the same day, so I have to apologize that I've been in and out.

I need to plead with individual members to consider that if you're asked to pass a similar motion—for those of us who are re-elected in the next election—this motion imposes an extremely arduous and unfair process on members of smaller parties. While I would have liked to speak to this to support the evidence of the Canadian Labour Congress that the way the bill is functioning will unfairly reduce the Canadian worker benefit entitlement, I accept the chair's ruling that it's out of order for the reasons the chair has stated.

I did want to put on the record that I may not be here for one of my subsequent amendments because of the pressures of clause-by-clause in a simultaneous committee.

I hope this process of putting members through this through the motions passed by every committee will be reconsidered, because it's extremely unfair.

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Chair, given that this motion is the same as NDP-28, I'd like to speak to it. This is our final NDP motion.

We certainly appreciate the committee considering these amendments. It takes a lot of work to improve legislation, and there is good discussion both ways. I appreciate the government members' consideration.

NDP-28, which is very similar to PV-17, requires that the review of the act include these additional topics as part of the review by the committees: (a) a systematic assessment of the state of fish and fish habitat across Canada; (b) a list of all authorized fish habitat damaged during the relevant time period; (c) a list of all required habitat compensation during the relevant time period; and (d) summary statistics from the public registry.

I want to note that the West Coast Environmental Law Association provided a brief on Bill C-68, and I appreciated their input. All witnesses provided this committee with a lot of very detailed and helpful suggestions. Certainly the WCELA's brief was extremely helpful.

I want to mention what they said:

Monitoring of compliance and effectiveness of habitat restoration has been found to be unsystematic and therefore compromises the ability to assess whether proponents are meeting required conditions.

Regular reporting on the status of restoration and offsetting decisions, monitoring, and outcomes enables evaluation of whether objectives are being achieved.

In the United States, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, a coalition of anglers, conservation groups, scientists, industry, and state and federal agencies was formed in 2006 with the priority goals of preparing five-year comprehensive assessments of the condition of fish habitat across the US. These assessments have been produced in 2010 and 2015, and have identified key areas of degraded habitat and drivers of degradation.

We recommend amending section 92 which now says that a five year report to this Committee or the Senate Committee should be prepared on “the provisions and operation of this Act” to also mandate the preparation of a systematic report on the state of fish habitat, fish habitat damage authorized by DFO, habitat compensation required by DFO, and the status of ongoing monitoring efforts across the country.

I wanted to get that in before the fate of this amendment was voted on.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, as this is my last amendment, I just want to take a moment to commend the permanent members of this committee on the wonderful way in which you work together, and the expeditious and fair way you've approached clause-by-clause on Bill C-68.

I will apologize that due to the motions I mentioned earlier—the ones I don't like, and you'll remember them—today I have to be at clause-by-clause for Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-74, and Bill C-69 and Bill C-74 are happening at the same time, so I'll be leaving very shortly.

I just want to say that my amendment, PV-17, is to provide a requirement. It's great that this bill has included a five-year review process. I think that's appropriate, but what my amendment would do—not to go through every detail of it—would be to ensure that when that five-year review comes up, whatever committee is mandated to review the Fisheries Act as it has been amended by Bill C-68 would have reports from the minister that cover really significant bits of information that would allow a committee to make a good assessment. The minister would give them the report on the assessment of the state of our fisheries and the state of the fisheries stock, a review of what's been done under provisions of this act relating to the undertakings for which there were exemptions, and a list of all fish habitat where there have been no net loss and other offset measures.

I won't give you all the details, but that's the intent of this amendment, to have the Minister of Fisheries have an affirmative duty to prepare a series of reports for the use of the committee that reviews this bill in five years' time.

[Nicholas Winfield]

In Bill C-68, there is the introduction of a permit scheme, where the word “permit” is used to define a statutory instrument. The term “permitted” is to refer to the permit scheme, whereas the language that previously read “otherwise permitted” is a bit vague around what it's specifically referencing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 102nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are considering Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, and today we are on clause-by-clause.

Before we get started, I'd just to like welcome a few people to the meeting today.

We have Stéphane Lauzon, the MP for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, is no stranger to this committee. Dave Van Kesteren, MP for Chatham-Kent—Leamington is with us. Thank you for joining us today.

Also, our departmental officials are here today to answer any technical questions we may have. We have Adam Burns, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management; Darren Goetze, Director General, Conservation and Protection; Gorazd Ruseski, Senior Director, Aboriginal Program; Mark Waddell, Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy; and Nicholas Winfield, Director General, Ecosystems Management.

We're going to move to clause-by-clause, and I'd just like to provide members with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package which each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together. In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principles of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause from the bill, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you would need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first, then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has the proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention, and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68.

(On clause 1)

We have amendment PV-1, in the name of Ms. May.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on this bill. I represent the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

I have some quick comments. Over the last two years, CEPA has committed fully to participating in consultations, discussions, and round tables on the government's review of the Fisheries Act, CEAA 2012, NEB modernization, and the Navigation Protection Act. CEPA provided over 200 pages of submissions and practical recommendations that were intended to help to achieve clarity and certainty and restore trust in the regulatory system for all stakeholders.

Throughout the process we have advocated for legislation that would be founded on science and fact-based decision-making, and we have leveraged the considerable and established expertise of the National Energy Board. We sought legislation that would achieve clarity, certainty, and predictability, while avoiding duplication.

Before I speak to Bill C-68, CEPA would like to reaffirm that we remain extremely concerned about the changes put forward in the impact assessment act, Bill C-69,, and we emphasized our concerns at the standing committee studying that bill. We have recently provided the government with detailed recommendations on amendments to the bill and we hope that changes will be made.

With respect to Bill C-68, our concerns are less profound and mostly related to details that are simply unknown at this point. We recognize that the proposed amendments in Bill C-68 are essentially a return to the pre-2013 approach to fisheries regulation, with added elements such as gender analysis, indigenous traditional knowledge, and community knowledge.

The effect of these potential changes is to increase regulatory burden, complexity, and uncertainty. The impact will very much depend on the approach to implementation. To put it another way, the mischief is in the details. Numerous regulations need to be developed, including the designated project list, timelines, habitat banking, and how authorizations or permits may be amended, suspended, or cancelled. These regulations will require significant consultation with stakeholders and at this point the details are unclear. We need to understand how Bill C-68 will be implemented. This includes an understanding of how advisory panels will work, the public registry, cost recovery, time limits for authorizations, habitat banking, and how gender analysis works within the context of the Fisheries Act.

We need to understand what groups and organizations could be considered an indigenous governing body, and we need to understand under what circumstances equivalency provisions will apply. We don't know how indigenous traditional knowledge will be considered and weighted. We simply do not have any clarity on any of these issues.

Although we have many questions, I would like to use the remaining time to focus our comments on four areas of concern that are of the highest priority to the pipeline sector.

First, there is the designated project list. Bill C-68 contemplates different processes for major projects than for smaller, routine projects. This, in and of itself, can be positive, allowing for more streamlined procedures for routine projects that have minimal impacts and known mitigation practices and upon which there is a large body of best practices that have been employed. However, we do not know what will be on that list or how it will be developed. Therefore, we strongly suggest that this legislation should not be passed in Parliament without the understanding of what the designated project list regulation will look like.

Second, we are concerned about how standards and codes of practice will be implemented. Proposed section 34.2 of Bill C-68 allows the minister to establish standards and codes of practice that may provide formal guidance for small routine projects. We consider this to be positive, if implemented in a practical manner. For more than 60 years, CEPA member companies have operated pipelines across the country, currently operating approximately 119,000 kilometres of pipelines, and they have constructed thousands of watercourse crossings. Because of this history, the environmental and socio-economic effects of building pipelines are well understood, and over the years best practices and standard mitigation methods have been developed and implemented. Having standards and codes of practice are of utmost importance to our industry. We require certainty and predictability during the permitting process. The codes of practice can provide that. Without codes of practice, our industry could be buried in time-consuming, uncertain approvals being needed for low-impact activities.

We are encouraged by the recent work done in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and scientists to prepare watercourse-crossing guidelines for pipelines. The guidelines, known as the fish and fish habitat impact assessment tool, could be one of the first standards referenced under the new legislation. In addition to input from DFO, the science underlying this guideline was reviewed by the Canadian science advisory secretariat using the highest, most rigorous scientific standards. The model used to prepare this guideline could be used by other industries.

Third, in terms of amending, cancelling, and suspending authorizations, a third area of concern is related to section 43. This section enables regulations to be developed whereby the minister or any other member of the public may request an amendment, suspension, or cancellation of an authorization or permit at any time. The rationale for this provision is unclear, and it creates uncertainty where there should be certainty. CEPA strongly suggests that this provision be removed from the legislation.

My fourth point relates to the National Energy Board, or the future Canadian energy regulator, and the role that the new CER will play in Fisheries Act authorizations.

In 2013, DFO and NEB signed an MOU, and that gave the NEB responsibility for initial review of Fisheries Act authorizations for NEB-regulated pipelines. Under the MOU, the NEB will assess the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat for pipeline watercourse crossings, and determine whether mitigation strategies are needed. If there are serious impacts, the NEB informs DFO and DFO will then review and be responsible for any authorizations, just like any other application. However, the NEB does the initial work to determine whether there are impacts. If there are none, the project applicant does not have to make a separate application to DFO.

Essentially the process triggered by the MOU avoids having two departments perform the same assessment. It avoids the duplication that drives more costly processes with long timelines. We are encouraged that Bill C-68 enables the sort of MOU that is currently in place with the NEB and DFO. To this end, CEPA recommends that the current MOU between the NEB and DFO be maintained.

In conclusion, CEPA recognizes that keeping water bodies and fish habitat protected is of utmost importance to Canadians, including pipeline operators, but we must also maintain a regulatory framework that provides clarity and certainty, avoids duplication, and further builds on the wealth of technical knowledge and best practices already in place to achieve our desired outcomes and ensure Canada's competitiveness.

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

[Nick Lapointe, Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation]

Thanks.

We've heard so far under Bill C-68 that large projects will be managed either by permits as designated projects or by authorizations, and we support this. We've also heard that low-risk projects will be regulated by codes of practice, and we support this as long as they fully avoid harm, which DFO has clearly stated is the intent.

For example, CEPA is speaking next, and if a pipeline is placed under a stream using a horizontal directional drill without disturbing the stream bed, this should fully avoid harm and seems like a suitable candidate for a code of practice. But this still leaves out a third class of projects: the countless small projects that do cause harm, and it's really unclear how they'll be managed. We're deeply concerned that DFO intends to include projects under codes of practice that actually do cause harm, and this harm won't be compensated for.

Take stream crossings, for example. It's been suggested that properly designed stream crossings don't cause harm as long as they pass fish, but any biologist will tell you that blocking fish passage isn't the only harm caused by stream crossings. If we take the example of a culvert, there's infilling on each side of the culvert. If the culvert has a closed bottom, then it eliminates habitat in the middle of the stream. Then, of course, there's riparian habitat loss on both sides, which occurs basically for any stream crossing.

A culvert example is on the small end of the scale in terms of small projects that cause harm. Other examples of bigger projects that aren't currently addressed under the Fisheries Act include the expansion of wharves, piers or jetties, extending shorelines, and channelizing streams. Definitely anything that infills aquatic habitat leaves residual harm and needs to be compensated for because right now, when you put all of these projects together, the cumulative effect is a significant problem.

How are small projects that harm fish currently managed by DFO? Flat out, some aren't. Proponents self-assess and might not choose to even notify DFO even though there is residual harm. If they do submit a request for review, DFO's now established formal triage thresholds are based on perceived habitat importance. For example, proponents can destroy up to 100 square metres of “important” habitat or up to 1,000 square metres of low-quality habitat without triggering an authorization. What counts as important or unimportant is entirely subjective. It's definitely not based on science at this stage.

If the project is small enough, the proponent is given a letter of advice on how to proceed. The problem is that this letter is an extra-legislative mechanism. The projects aren't tracked, the conditions of the letter are not enforceable, and no compensation is provided for the residual harm of the project.

What do DFO scientists think about this? A group of them, led by DFO's chief scientist, published a peer-reviewed paper and concluded that to achieve no net loss, all projects that are not authorized need to result in zero death of fish or zero residual harm to habitat or an improvement to habitat, and this is not currently the case.

Ken Minns, a retired DFO research scientist, concluded that under DFO's current approach to managing small projects, the continued net loss of productive capacity appears inevitable. Under this framework no net loss is really slow net loss.

Again, currently under the proposed framework projects that avoid harm will be regulated by codes of practice and those that cause HADD will still require authorizations or permits. What's going to happen to the small projects that cause residual harm? Either letters of advice will still be issued and residual harm will still accumulate, something that's flat out unacceptable to anyone who cares about fish habitat, or thousands of small projects are going to require authorizations. I assume when I say that some of you, and certainly our industry partners, are thinking, “God, these guys want DFO to authorize everything”. Trust me, that's not the case. Authorizing all these small projects would create a massive bureaucracy. It would create delays, uncertainties, costs, and liabilities for proponents, and it would really only produce questionable environmental benefits. A whole bunch of tiny one-off offsets are unlikely to address the real restoration priorities that we have in Canada. There are definitely better ways to solve this problem.

One solution is to set up an alternate permitting process for small projects, where proponents can register online and receive a permit automatically—no delays, no uncertainty. The permit conditions would have to be enforceable. They would have to require that proponents first avoid, then mitigate harm, following best management practices, and this process would have to be accompanied by random audits to ensure that proponents are accountable and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Overall, this would definitely be more efficient and it would allow DFO to assess cumulative effects, but we still need to address the residual harm from these projects.

There are several ways to do this that would be better for fish habitat than individual offsets. Big proponents might simply be able to use credits from their own existing habitat banks under the new habitat banking framework, but that leaves small proponents and private landowners out in the cold.

These proponents need to be able to purchase credits from existing habitat banks. For that, we need an amendment to enable third-party habitat banking, or DFO could collect a fee in lieu of an offset and pool these fees in a dedicated fund similar to the environmental damages fund. This could later pay for meaningful, high-priority restoration projects in the same service area, but again, an amendment is needed to enable this tool.

Finally, it might be even be possible to include specific requirements for compensation activities for some project types in the permit conditions, or possibly under codes of practice, as long as these conditions were enforceable. These recommendations are outlined in our brief. We also support recommendations made by Ecojustice on this issue.

Generally, though, we’re open-minded to any alternative solution that solves this problem, and need to emphasize that this is the primary modern safeguard that needs to be established under Bill C-68.