Fisheries committee  Yes, I can, Madam Chair.

Fisheries committee  Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. Good morning from British Columbia. As the chair said, my name is Margot Venton. I'm a Staff Lawyer with Ecojustice Canada, a national charity dedicated to preserving and protecting the environment using Canadian law. We have

Fisheries committee  I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be no other considerations in authorizing harm to fish habitat, especially, for example, in those—

Fisheries committee  No. What I'm suggesting is that just to be clear what we need to add into the existing very discretionary system are some science-based criteria to guide decision-making. Generally, with respect to flood mitigation and other emergency measures and even in the Species At Risk Act,

Fisheries committee  —and they shouldn't be—

Fisheries committee  I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing, so I can't give you a specific example.

Fisheries committee  I don't think we should ever ignore science. I'm not suggesting that there are no circumstances in which other factors may be important as a balancing. It's just that at the moment there's nothing that requires the minister or his or her delegates to turn his or her mind to scien

Fisheries committee  It's entirely possible. I don't know without looking at the reasoning in more detail. I can't say that they found clearly that it would have harmful alteration or would harmfully disrupt fish habitat, but maybe not lead to serious harm to fish. It depends where that balancing is.

Fisheries committee  I think I echo the comments of several presenters who have suggested that the serious harm to fish requirement—the death of fish or permanent harm to habitat—just sets too high a bar to be useful for the protection of fish habitat for several species. Salmon is an obvious example

Fisheries committee  I think that both are essential elements. It really worries me that the new provision requires proof. If you read old HADD decisions, there's a whole discussion in the court about the fact that you don't need to prove that you are harming fish. That's an integral piece of why pro

Fisheries committee  It makes it more complicated.

Fisheries committee  Really? Okay.

Fisheries committee  I don't think I disagree that programs for conservation are extremely important. I just think it's very important, when we're talking about habitat protection, that we recognize the breadth of activities that can harm fish habitat, and the need, perhaps, to create some detailed r

Fisheries committee  Yes. It's the idea that if you have a lake, for example, a single decision to develop something or do something on that lake may itself not have an impact, but if you do the same thing 20 or 30 times where there are 30 or 40 different activities, that can create an impact, even t

Fisheries committee  I think this is one of the reasons why it's extremely important, as we said in our recommendations, for DFO to evaluate and assess what those watersheds can handle and where those tipping points are. I also think it's really tricky for us in North America in general, where we've