Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
May I have consent to group clauses 23 to 27 together, as there are no amendments?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Yes, you're correct, Mr. Arnold.
(Clause 23 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 28)
We have amendment CPC-16.
Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, this amendment addresses the issues around habitat banking. The terminology used in the proposed act is “service area”. We believe it would be more appropriate that the terminology be “within a watershed”. There is no definition of “service area” that we can see.
I would ask the officials, is there a definition? How would a “service area” be determined?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You are correct that there is no definition in the act.
It is a concept used in habitat banking schemes around the world, giving flexibility to define the ecological area within the area of the project. The challenge with “watershed” is it is also open for definition as to what scale of watershed: anything from a small tributary up to a large river. The term “service area” is intended to provide some direction around how to define the boundaries of an ecological unit.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Would it be more appropriate, or more fish friendly, if instead of using the term “watershed” we inserted, “in waters accessible to fish indigenous to the service area”?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
All of these do add clarity to the concept.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I may need to come back with some further wording then, if “watershed” isn't acceptable. I think we just heard that using terminology around “water accessible to fish natural to that system”....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
To do that, Mr. Arnold, we would have to stand clause 28 altogether, because we can't move forward.
Conservative
Liberal
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I had a question related to that.
Who decides what an ecological unit is?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
This all has to be defined in policy for habitat banks.
An ecological unit, as you know, is different; for example, the wild salmon policy defines an ecological unit as a conservation unit. That has been defined as an area where a subpopulation uses that area to continue its life processes.
The term “conservation unit” has been used a lot in conservation planning. A wide range of terminology has been used for watershed units, but essentially it has to be defined in policy based on the fish populations in question, and the geographical constraints of an area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
We will stand clause 28.
(Clause 28 allowed to stand)
(On clause 29)
We have amendment NDP-17.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
You're not moving it? Okay, it shall not be moved.
(Clause 29 agreed to on division)
(On clause 30)
We have NDP-18.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, this refers to the contents of the registry, and it adds a proposed paragraph:
(a.1) any plans referred to in subsection 6.1(2), any amendments to it and any notices respecting the suspension of the plans;
That will provide greater transparency. The idea here, Madam Chair, is to increase transparency.
(Amendment negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
We are on PV-12. If PV-12 is adopted, NDP-20 and CPC-18 cannot be moved as there is a line conflict, and NDP-23 becomes moot as its provisions would already be adopted.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I am very supportive of the creation of this registry in proposed section 42.2 of the newly numbered act.
Similar to Fin's attempt just a moment ago, my amendment PV-12 adds some additional content of what should be on the registry. In addition to what's now there, which would be any agreements between provincial or indigenous governments or standards or codes of practice, my amendment would add “any permit issued for the carrying out of a project that implements standards in the codes of practice”.
Another point is to make sure that we post on the registry “the results of any studies, analyses, samplings or evaluations”.
Finally, at the end of that section, we add a new proposed paragraph (g) that would require that we post on the registry “any statistical summaries of convictions for offences respecting fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention.”
It makes the public registry more robust by providing more information.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Do we have any other discussion on PV-12?
(Amendment negatived)
We are on NDP-19.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, this refers to the contents of the registry and adds a new proposed paragraph 42.3(1)(b.1) The addition is:
any records relating to projects carried out in accordance with the standards and codes of practice established under section 34.2;
This allows for greater transparency. Again, this is to increase transparency.
(Amendment negatived)