I want to be really clear here. This notion that's being bandied about that there are no habitat protections in the new Fisheries Act is complete nonsense. The new act says it's prohibited to:
...carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.
Serious harm to fish is defined as:
the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.
Fish habitat is defined as:
spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.
This idea that all habitat protections are gone under the new Fisheries Act is completely false.
I should also note that in a legal opinion, Blakes, which is a prominent law firm that did an analysis of the new Fisheries Act, noted that:
It is important to note the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate impacts to fish and fish habitat flow from its powers under the Constitution Act, 1867 over "coastal and inland fisheries". Canadian courts have confirmed, more than once, that these powers are limited to fisheries, as a resource, and do not mean the federal government has the power to regulate over all fish or fish habitat in Canada. In this respect, the new prohibitions are, to some extent, a codification of that which already exists at law.
I am a member of Parliament for a rural area, and the Fisheries and Oceans law enforcement officers would descend on my community and cause great economic harm through their interpretation and enforcement of the old Fisheries Act, which, it's quite clear, they simply couldn't enforce or define. That is one of the reasons why we had to change the act.
I agree with much of what our colleagues from the Canadian Wildlife Federation said. I think they were implying that many of the changes to the act were good. They would like to see some changes to the old act. I think that's certainly legitimate.
I have a question for Doctor Favaro.
Given that you're a scientist, can you quantify for me any changes to a fish population or community in Canada that resulted from the changes that we made to the Fisheries Act? I use the term “quantitative” deliberately. I don't want opinions or emotion; I want numbers and facts.