Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to a timely piece of legislation, Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries.
I would like to deal particularly with the habitat provisions of these amendments to the Fisheries Act and to highlight their role in the renewal of the Canadian federation.
The federal government currently has constitutional responsibility for both marine and freshwater fisheries. It is also directly involved in the management of freshwater fisheries only in Atlantic Canada, Northwest and Yukon Territories and rivers in British Columbia that are home to spawning salmon.
Day to day management of freshwater fisheries has been delegated to the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec and to British Columbia for non-salmon waters through regulation and general fisheries agreements. These provinces play a significant role in managing fish habitat usually without formal agreements with the federal government. The exception of course is Ontario with which we have a memorandum of intent on fish habitat.
Federal habitat responsibilities are set out in the Fisheries ACT. In this respect the objective of the act is a net gain in productive fish habitat. To meet this objective three goals are pursued: conservation of existing fish habitat, restoration of previously degraded fish habitat and development of a new habitat.
Under the conservation goal the department tries to ensure that adverse impacts on fish habitat are avoided by assessing projects before they are built. These assessments can require the relocation or redesign of projects to prevent damage. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans strives to ensure that unavoidable loss of fish habitat is balanced by habitat replacement on a project by project basis.
Currently inland provinces manage fish habitat with minimal federal involvement and often without clear direction or accountability. This can result in several problems.
One is a lack of formal agreements with the province over which projects should or should not require review by the department. For example, one province may refer a small project to the department for review, while a neighbouring province may not refer a major project with potentially significant impacts on habitat. This leads to inconsistent levels of fish habitat and an inconsistent protection of fish habitat across the country.
Another problem arises from the discretionary nature of some of the habitat provisions, notably section 35 of the current Fisheries Act which prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
To avoid contravening the Fisheries Act, an authorization is required only where a project will result in harmful effects to the habitat. Therefore an offence can occur only when harmful alternation of habitat occurs without authorization.
This is the way we have been operating up to the present time and it is impossible to supervise. In addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition, the way we are operating now, it is impossible to supervise every single thing that goes on in these coastal waters that are covered by the Fisheries Act.
For example, when the Department of the Environment is to look at such things as ocean dumping on the west coast we have tens of thousands of miles of coastline on that rugged coast, as well the islands and all the northern region. I am talking about the Arctic Ocean region with the islands.
Yet the Department of the Environment has only a handful of people to inspect each project and all dumping that takes place in the ocean. Something has to change.
Better habitat protection will result if measures to protect habitat were included in project plans and specifications in advance rather than through enforcement after damage to habitat has occurred.
Some of our opposition is questioning whether that is possible. As an example, I was fortunate enough to be in Nanaimo, British Columbia at a time when there was a very important meeting taking place. Attending that meeting were project supervisors, representatives from the federal and provincial levels and the ministries of environment, outside objective consultants who are experts in environmental affairs, a project engineer from the municipality. Here was a partnership sitting around the table and discussing the environmental impact on a golf course that that community was planning to build. All the concerns of an environmental nature were being addressed in advance.
These people co-operatively, in partnership, came to the conclusion that certain major changes had to take place in the major plans that were being presented by the company that wanted to build a golf course right on the edge of a habitat for a very important fish species. To me, that is a democratic model. That is what we are pushing in this bill.
It is certainly preferable to prevent damage rather than repair it. That is what this bill intends. The provinces manage habitat on a day to day basis while the federal government retains decision making authority. This could create uncertainty over which level of government should be doing what.
Delegation agreements with the provinces under this bill, by clarifying roles and setting out clear responsibility, will reduce this uncertainty by improving habitat management and making it more consistent across the country.
The new fisheries act would enable us to delegate to the provinces the responsibility to make all decisions for certain types of projects under a number of provisions of the fisheries act.
I am aware that some environmental groups are concerned that delegation would weaken habitat protection and lead to a patchwork quilt of habitat management across the country. I want to assure them that the federal government will not delegate to provinces that are not capable or willing to effectively meet national habitat protection standards. The provinces will be required to show that they are meeting these standards through appropriate accountability which could include reports to the federal government and through periodical federal audits of their performance.
Agreements could be for a fixed period of time or before the agreement could be renewed there could be a review to determine if the requirements of the fisheries act had been met.
The question of habitat management standards is not on the table. National standards will be maintained. However, we are flexible about the specific arrangements that would be made with the provinces. We are currently discussing the extent and scope of delegation with the provinces, industry and environmental groups. A major workshop will be held this fall to examine the best approach to take in determining what type of projects or activities should remain under federal authority.
In summary, habitat delegation will contribute to a more effective federation by placing in the hands of each level of government those responsibilities they are best able to carry out. This will end uncertainty over who should be doing what. The results will be more effective decision making that will not delay development project unnecessarily and will simultaneously yield better habitat management.
It is for these reasons that I intend to support the bill.
