Thank you.
Bonjour. I'm Dr. James Duncan, the director of the wildlife and fisheries branch of Manitoba Sustainable Development. With me today is my colleague, Dr. Brian Parker, senior fisheries manager.
First of all, on behalf of Manitoba Sustainable Development, I'd like to say that we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review of the Fisheries Act.
Manitoba is actively participating in the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers task group for the review of the 2012-13 changes to the Fisheries Act. We appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with our federal, provincial, and territorial counterparts as we work toward a common goal of restoring protections and incorporating modern safeguards into the Fisheries Act.
Manitoba Sustainable Development supports the federal review and welcomes opportunities to improve the use of scientific evidence in environmental decision-making.
The federal authorization process is required for many development projects. It is an important process and should provide a balance between facilitating investment and creating local jobs and protecting provincial fisheries.
Manitoba Sustainable Development has developed recommendations with the goal of strengthening the protection of fisheries while at the same time improving clarity and reducing regulatory red tape. These recommendations also have taken into account ongoing task group discussions.
There are five recommendations with this presentation.
Recommendation number one is about the definition of serious harm and other key terms from a sustainable development perspective.
Our first recommendation relates to how key terminology is defined under the Fisheries Act. Projects should be assessed from a sustainable development perspective, with consideration given to the balance of ecological, economic, and social impacts of the fishery. Therefore, we feel there is an opportunity to have clear definitions of key terms from a sustainable development perspective.
For example, under the Fisheries Act, proponents are prohibited from activities that result in “serious harm” to fish or habitat unless an authorization has been granted. However, the current definition of serious harm is subject to interpretation. “Serious harm” is currently defined as follows:
the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.
However, it's been difficult to determine with certainty when this prohibition applies: for example, to one fish, or to one population of fish, or to an assemblage of fish species. There is also some lack of clarity regarding the nature of impacts to habitat, specifically, what constitutes a permanent alteration and whether an alteration is necessarily implicitly negative.
The Province of Manitoba is developing drainage regulations to streamline approvals for low-impact drainage works. These regulations will authorize routine maintenance of roadside drainage channels. It is important to balance protection of fish habitat with the need for timely approvals of water management projects such as man-made drainage works. For example, an agricultural producer could offset the impact to a stream by taking mitigation actions such as riparian area soil conservation.
I'll let my colleague Brian continue with the rest of the recommendations.