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, Fisheries and Licence Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
They would probably not be deemed as part of the 170 that are major stocks in Canada.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I want a recorded vote.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)
(On clause 28)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
We'll move now to the other clause that we had let stand, which is clause 28. We had CPC-16 and CPC-17.
Mr. Arnold, would you like to speak to those?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes. If we're able to move forward on CPC-16, can CPC-17 still be considered, or is there a potential line conflict between the two?
Conservative
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Yes, I've circulated to the members and, I believe, to the legislatives clerks proposed changes to CPC-17. If you like, I can read out the new text, “That a proponent may use the certified habitat credits in respect of fish habitat to offset the adverse effects of fish or fish habitat within a service area accessible by the species of fish affected by the carrying on of work or activity authorized or permitted to be carried on in that service area.”
My reasoning behind this is that the term “watershed” was deemed to be likely not acceptable, and this term “service area” seems to be somewhat used through the act or intended in the regulation.
What I intend by this amendment is that the habitat credits be in an area that is accessible to fish that may be affected by a project. Because service areas aren't defined yet, I think we should do due diligence and make sure that this in the legislation. The service area could be an entire watershed. I give an example of the Fraser River watershed, which could mean anything from almost downtown Vancouver or Richmond to McBride in the Rocky Mountains, all within the same Fraser River watershed, but certainly not accessible by all fish species that may be affected in one service area. I would like it to be included so that species affected by a project would have access to the habitat banking that is done in mitigation of the project.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I appreciate Mr. Arnold's explanation and his clarifying motion here. Could I ask the officials about service areas? I think this is an important point.
DFO works with management areas and conservation units, so is “service area” a standard term? Does “management area” or “conservation unit” fall within service areas? Could there be some clarity on that?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you. I also, for the record, wish to apologize for the last meeting when I said there was no definition of “service area.” There is a definition of service area in the bill. That definition is:
service area means the geographical area that encompasses a fish habitat bank and one or more conservation projects and within which area a proponent carries on a work, undertaking or activity.
That's the definition found in the bill, which covers your thinking, Mr. Arnold, with respect to its physical location. The policy interpretation of a service area—built into existing policy documents and consistent with international literature—essentially says that the service area should be based on consideration of ecological criteria such as a watershed boundary, a drainage area, an eco-zone, a bay, a lake, fisheries management objectives and, if applicable, jurisdictional boundaries.
The policy interpretation is in line with your rationale that you proposed, and the definition that is in the act currently captures the issue that you have put forward.
To get to your point, Mr. Donnelly, the units of measure would include things like a conservation unit, which is used in our management policy for salmon, for example. It can also extend to a slightly larger area, should that be necessary for sustaining populations of fish that are impacted by the projects in question. The whole idea is to nest the impact area and the habitat bank within one ecological unit, but we do not have terminology in the act for those ecological units because they vary based on the populations of fish that use those areas. For a non-migratory species, it could be a very small lake. For a large migratory species, it could be quite large in terms of a larger watershed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Mr. Winfield, do you have the page number that that is in the act?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The definition...?
Liberal
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
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.
Conservative
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is very helpful, but you alluded to the nesting, and that's where I was going. Could you provide a little more clarity about how a conservation unit is nested? Is it within a service area? Could you just explain a little bit more about that?
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That is correct. A conservation unit would be nested within a broader management zone. For Pacific salmon conservation units, designatable units are used to describe areas that specific populations or subpopulations use to spawn and reproduce. That is one unit of measure that could be used, but it can also be scaled up if we wish to address migratory areas as well as just the spawning and nursery areas for those fish.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mel used the example of the Fraser watershed and species of salmon. For instance, if the Harrison River is affected in the mouth by a project, if you damage that area of the mouth of the river—say, with a bridge, a building, or whatever you put there, and you damage that habitat—could you rebuild, then, in the Harrison? Is that consistent within the service area?