Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you success in that role for which you have been predestined for a long time. We are all very glad to see you in the chair.
Historically it can be said that the Fisheries Act has played a very important environmental role because of its powers to regulate the alterations or destructions of fish habitat. Many Canadians, therefore, believe it is the most important piece of environmental legislation in Canada. For example, the Oldman dam environmental assessment was made possible by a trigger in the Fisheries Act, section 35(2), which resulted in the environmental assessment and review process.
This bill makes some important changes to the act. Clause 49 of the bill appears to broaden protection of fish habitat by making a general prohibition against harmful alteration. By adding the word "activity" to clause 49, certain types of mining found by the courts not to be included under the term "works or undertaking" used in the old act will now be included. Congratulations to the minister.
It must be said that in most provinces and territories the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions are the only legal protection for wetlands, streams, shorelines and other such ecological significant areas. Hence, the most problematic section of the bill is clause 58(1), which would permit, by means of regulation, the delegation of certain habitat protection and management responsibilities to interested provincial governments.
This delegation would be limited to waters within the provinces, largely freshwater habitat and excludes a list of "prescribed projects", which would remain under the authority of the federal government but have yet to be determined.
The proposed legislation is not a carte blanche transfer of freshwater fish habitat responsibilities to the provinces, but instead would allow the federal government to negotiate agreements for the delegation of responsibilities to interested provinces. However,
because these agreements will have great consequences for fish habitat and environmental protection I would like to dwell on this part of the bill.
One of the reasons advanced for negotiating delegation agreements with the provinces is to eliminate "duplication and overlap" between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
There is only anecdotal evidence to this effect and this may be true in some isolated cases. But in Ontario, after the Harris government's revisions of the land use planning act, protection for environmentally significant areas such as wetland, woodlots and ravines and prime agricultural land has been basically eliminated. Thus, in the case of Ontario, there is very little left in the daily operations of the ministry to operate, let alone to examine overlap and duplication. After Premier Harris' reforms the fisheries act now stands as the only significant protection for Ontario's wetlands, streams and shorelines.
The terms of these agreements are of great importance therefore to fish habitat and overall environmental protection. I am glad that delegation will occur on a province by province basis. This will hopefully allow for the maintenance of high standards across the country.
Not only Ontario has greatly reduced its ministries of the environment and natural resources. In Alberta the environment minister's budget will be reduced by $164 million and 1,360 jobs by the year 1999. According to the premier, industry will monitor and regulate itself.
In Ontario, the ministry of environment and energy is being cut by $200 million and 752 staff by the year 1997-98 and the ministry of natural resources is being cut by $137 million and 2,170 staff over the same time.
These massive cuts will most definitely impact negatively on the ability of these two provincial governments to assume increased responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Hence the agreements between the government and respective provinces must incorporate a strong and transparent monitoring system to ensure that fish habitat is properly protected. In addition, strong accountability mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance incorporated into the agreements are needed. Without these provisions, delegation could result in the de facto deregulation, something the federal government surely does not want to do and actually wants to avoid.
The delegation of section 35(2) in the present Fisheries Act to the provinces also has serious ramifications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act passed in 1995. Under that act section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers environmental assessment. Under Bill C-62 this will not longer be the case and instead the government is proposing the negotiation of a list of projects which would require a mandatory permit. The list of projects requiring permits will be prescribed in the regulations after being negotiated with stakeholders.
In order to maintain the original intent and the environmental protection accorded through making section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act a trigger for the assessment, I strongly urge the minister to make the project list comprehensive and representative of ecologically diverse areas and find ways of tracking and quantifying the cumulative effects of several small projects which might fail to come under those defined under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act trigger.
Without this capacity our environmental assessment will risk going back to a project by project approach instead of going forward to account for the cumulative impacts of development within a particular region.
The track record regarding the delegation of Fisheries Act provisions to the provinces has not fared well in the past. In his 1990 report then Auditor General Kenneth Dye stated: "In the one area where the federal government has already delegated monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations issues under the Fisheries Act indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988". This is found on page 28 of the auditor general's report.
While congratulating the minister I also urge him to ensure the agreements with the provinces include a very strong and transparent mechanisms for ensuring that proper monitoring and enforcement will take place. The integrity of the fish habitat protection demands such an approach if the Fisheries Act is to continue to protect Canadians' health, environment and our most precious fisheries habitat.