Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. It is a well-deserved distinction.
I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary for staying here this evening to answer my questions. It is very much appreciated.
I would also like to congratulate our new colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, on his recent appointment to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I rise here this evening to follow up on a question from April 24. At that time, I had asked why the Conservatives were putting our fishery at risk. The minister denied that the changes to the Fisheries Act would jeopardize the fishing industry. He even went as far as claiming that, on the contrary, the changes will enhance habitat protection.
However, if we look closely at the changes to the Fisheries Act and particularly those dealing with fish habitat, it is clear that several of those changes pose a serious risk to the future of the fishing industry.
First of all, the definition of “fish habitat” was changed in the legislation. How can the Conservatives claim to protect fish stocks when the legislation does not even identify its habitat? This creates a legal uncertainty that precludes proper regulation.
Second, the definition of serious harm includes only the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat. Such harm is extremely difficult to prove in court. How can we count the number of dead fish in an isolated case? How can we determine whether this damage is permanent? It would be extremely difficult.
Third, the government introduced the notion of ecologically significant areas but did not define it. Who in this government will be able to define what is an ecologically significant area? And how will it be defined? For the Conservatives who abandoned Kyoto, it does not seem as though they even think the planet Earth is an ecologically significant area. What about a river or a marsh?
We know that each element of the ecosystem is essential to the survival of our fisheries resources. This means that every area is ecologically significant.
Fourth, the new law would protect fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery. In light of all of the cuts being made to science and the experts being fired, this government does not seem to have the ability to establish the fish food chain with certainty.
Fifth, individuals will no longer have to conduct an environmental study before taking action that could harm fish. They can do it voluntarily or at the minister's request. In a world where companies are focused on externalizing costs, does the minister really think that environmental studies are going to happen?
Indeed, this gives the minister far too much discretionary power to decide whether or not to conduct an environmental study. This government is a leader when it comes to disrespecting the environment.
In short, these changes eliminate the possibility of legal action to protect the fishing industry from potential harm to fish habitat. This legislation will not protect our fisheries. It will undermine the Fisheries Act. By leaving out definitions, it gives the minister far too much leeway when it comes to protecting our environment and our fisheries.
It is extremely naive to believe that environmental assessments will be conducted on a voluntary basis. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans taking his role as protector of the fisheries seriously?