Evidence of meeting #103 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
If the stocks that were impacted by the initial development used the Harrison, then that could be considered within the service area; but it's intended to tie it to the populations of fish that were impacted by the project and their geographical range.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Some of those ranges are huge. Mel was talking about the Fraser, and you have chinook salmon that would go up from Vancouver to McBride. This is a huge area. That was part of my concern with having such a large unit: you could destroy one part of the watershed and overcompensate in another part. That's the concern.
I guess you were trying to get at that, Mel.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
You've clarified what's in the bill. Were you quoting the “service area” description, the definition?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I don't see anything in that definition that would require it to be an area that is accessible to the species impacted by a project. That is why I've proposed this amendment: to make sure habitat banking that is done and exchanged is in direct relation to species that are impacted.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I completely understand your question. The way the bill was constructed was intended to achieve your objective, but I appreciate your seeking additional clarity.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Would you agree that the amendment adds further clarity and puts it within the act, rather than relying on regulation after the fact to hope it would be effective?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
What's put in proposed section 42.02 is to define a scheme. An agreement has to be entered into with a proponent to create a habitat bank within a geographical area. The scheme that's put forward in the bill seeks to define that boundary. The agreements that we have in place have always followed the principle that you're described, which is to work within an area that is within the immediate zone or adjacent zone for the populations that are impacted. We have a number of these with small municipalities, which have defined a service area that is proximal to the project site. They have not expanded to the magnitude that you described for the Fraser, going up to McBride, for example.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
These are all management agreements that have been done under policy. There's nothing in the act that would prescribe that that take place, unless we adopt this amendment.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You're correct. The service area is the only language that we would have to nest that out.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
You've heard the CPC-17 amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 28 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
We are now finished with the clauses that we had allowed to stand.
Shall the title carry?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?