Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and members of the public.
I'm disappointed I'm not addressing these comments and concerns, frankly, to the fisheries committee, and instead that these important matters are being considered as part of an unrealistically complicated, unprecedented omnibus finance bill. The timing and design of this approach short-circuits the democratic process, and it certainly doesn't allow for the type and amount of reasoned discussion that fundamental important public policy deserves.
The considerations in Bill C-38 related to Fisheries and Ocean's activities, mandate, and resources could have significant long-term impacts on the essential underpinnings of our communities and our economy. Despite the significant displeasure with this approach, I'm here to speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of waterfront property owners who help to form the backbone of our rural economies.
First some background. My specific interest here relates to my role with the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association. Our organization is a not-for-profit established 50 years ago to represent the interests of rural waterfront owners in the province of Ontario on all facets of community life. We currently count amongst our supporters 500 community groups that represent 50,000 families. In total, the residential waterfront community numbers approximately 250,000 families across Ontario. We also work collegially with waterfront organizations in a number of other provinces, and with industry, other not-for-profits, and government as part of numerous committees related to water, biodiversity, mining, land use planning, and resource management.
Our interests include fire and crime safety, safe boating, risk management for volunteers, sound land use planning and rural practices, and, most centrally, the promotion of sustainable and healthy rural waterfront communities. We are vested parties. We have member associations in over 380 of Ontario's 444 municipalities and many in Ontario's northern unorganized territories. All told, there are about 15,000 kilometres and 50,000 hectares of privately held waterfront lands in Ontario, which are some of our most ecologically sensitive lands. The residential waterfront property community owns over $75 billion of residential real estate and contributes over $600 million annually in municipal and school property taxes.
For over 50 years our primary interest has been on supporting thriving and sustainable communities and specifically the health of our precious aquatic resources. In addition to supporting private land stewardship, we rely on the rule of law to ensure our natural resources are managed and cared for. Our community inherently knows, and it has had it confirmed by at least two U.S. university studies, that cleaner water is positively correlated to higher residential property values and directly impacts the use and enjoyment of our homes and the health of our families.
Today I wanted to relay our specific concerns related to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act and the significant negative implications that may result. The habitat provisions in section 35 of the Fisheries Act prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat. That's been the basis for ensuring aquatic resources are not impacted by shoreline or in-water projects and that our fisheries are allowed to thrive.
Clause 142 of the proposed budget implementation act diminishes the existing law and as a result is bad for Canadians. It does this first by limiting prohibitions to only commercially important fish. Complex natural systems require healthy food webs made up of a variety of species, and I note that the large majority of at risk fish species aren't commercially fished. Secondly, clause 142 establishes a prohibition based on serious harm that's permanent. We feel this new definition is both unclear and ill defined, and thus is subject to interpretation and will be challenged. Defining a serious harm that's permanent is problematic and will not simplify things.
Most provinces don't have laws making it an offence to harm fish habitat, and for those that do, these laws can be weak and discretionary. For many provinces, like Ontario, they rely on the Fisheries Act and their own regulations to protect habitat, and use it to ensure environmental assessment of major projects like mines, which are excluded from provincial environment assessment laws.
While an important piece of Canadian law, section 35 of the existing Fisheries Act is still overly discretionary and should be strengthened, not weakened. The act should be revised to require that industrial undertakings are economically and environmentally sustainable, they take a precautionary approach, and repair or avoid harm to aquatic habitats and species.
The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act are regressive. Instead of embracing ecosystem-based management, the changes narrow the provisions to protect fish and fish habitat to focus only on identified fisheries. Instead of limiting discretion or guiding decision-making under the act, they create a framework for suspending the application of conservation provisions altogether.
The national laws on our fisheries should provide a clear national standard for protecting fish and fish habitat. Yet clause 134 of the budget implementation act allows for certain provisions of the act or regulations to be completely relegated to provincial discretion, in which case the federal fisheries law is suspended and provincial law applies in its place.
Whatever its shortcomings, the existing law has breadth and consequences for offenders that are significant, including fines and jail terms. This is a deterrent that is potent and powerful.
I would like to conclude my remarks with some commentary about the investment our government is making in natural resources research.
Our water resources and the life they sustain are our most valuable resource. Our freshwater resources, our lakes and rivers, sustain our industry, are fundamental to agriculture, and are the foundation for all life on earth. Yet overall, we have a limited understanding of the dynamics of freshwater and their long-term health.
For almost 50 years, Canada's Experimental Lakes Area has been an incredibly valuable aquatic research facility, unlike any research facility like it in the world. This dedicated area of 58 small lakes in northwestern Ontario and their watersheds are an important natural outdoor laboratory to study the physical, chemical, and biological processes in actual lake ecosystems. The ELA has one of the longest, most complete, and unique sets of information on water quality in the world. This data is crucial for monitoring and developing sound environmental and industrial policy. Research at ELA makes, and has made, important contributions to decision-making on many issues, and these include: restricting phosphorus inputs to lakes, which combats undesirable algal blooms; it contributed to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement, which is a policy that limits air pollution from sulphur and nitrogen oxides and reduces acid rain; they've studied greenhouse gas production in hydroelectric reservoirs, the effectiveness of proposed legislation to restrict mercury air pollution, and the effects of releasing endocrine disrupting chemicals into our waters. These issues can dramatically impact our economy and Canadian society.
Investing in this important facility and its researchers will provide benefits through better understanding of our freshwaters for years to come.
The notion that private industry or universities will be able to dedicate themselves and maintain this research over the long term is simply false and unrealistic. The government must reconsider the decision to close this facility and reinstate our commitment to the knowledge it provides our industry, our governments, and civil society.
Canada's federal government needs to provide the conditions for rational and sustainable growth. This means providing clarity and accountability to everyone who has a stake in Canada. It also means a commitment to the scientific underpinnings that will drive innovation, strong and informed public policy, and a healthy and prosperous population.
Thank you.