Thank you, Jacob.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, and committee members.

As Mr. Irving has said, it is important that the public trusts the effectiveness of the processes that safeguard Canadian fisheries. With regard to this, we welcome the opportunity to put our views before the committee today.

You will see in our written submission that, at this time, we are not persuaded that the Fisheries Act needs substantial redrafting. Protections, however, can be strengthened most effectively through policy and guidance measures.

The amendments in 2012 did not, we believe, weaken its effectiveness, as it still provides a sound framework for fisheries protection. In fact, from our perspective, some of the amendments actually strengthened the legislation. One example is the increased authority for enforcement and penalties. The amendments also made explicit, in the new section 6, the factors that must be taken into account in ministerial decision-making.

To this end, some of the loss of public confidence in the Fisheries Act might be traced to the manner in which the amendments were made and to a misunderstanding of the act's original purpose.

With the precedent established through the Supreme Court of Canada rulings, we believe that the act is intended to manage Canadian fisheries, not simply individual fish. This is not a concept that was introduced in 2012. There are decades of jurisprudence stating that this was the legislation's original and continuing purpose. However, we do think that protection regimes can be improved.

We believe that Parliament, in considering changes, should be guided by the principles of good regulatory policy and practice that are important for our industry: clarity, consistency, efficiency, and transparency.

With regard to clarity and serious harm, perhaps the most controversial change to the act in 2012 was the merging of two previous elements of the old act. Sections 35 and 32 were merged into what we now know as section 35, which addresses both harm to fish and the alteration of fish habitat. The critical element of this section prohibits serious harm to fish, which is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”.

In our submission, we suggest a more precise definition of “serious harm” that focuses attention on harm or habitat alteration that will have an impact on fish populations at large. Without that clarity, the existing definition could be interpreted to include the incidental loss of an individual fish with no material impact on the fishery at large. Similarly, when it comes to habitat, without clarity on the serious harm to fish, we believe that the existing definition could also be interpreted to include elements of fish habitat disturbance that in no way result in material impacts to fish populations.

For these reasons, clarification of the meaning of serious harm would guide our industry in making decisions, would strengthen industry's confidence in the regulatory regime in Canada, and would make efficient use of regulatory resources within the various departments, focusing them on the true threats to Canadian fisheries.

With regard to existing facilities and consistency, given hydro power's long history in Canada, the industry is concerned about how the act will deal with existing facilities moving forward. As you may know, there are over 400 existing hydroelectric facilities in our country. Most were approved and constructed before the current provisions of the Fisheries Act in the mid-1970s.

We believe that it would be inappropriate, therefore, to broadly apply the act retrospectively. However, in certain situations where ongoing operations of an existing facility are causing serious harm to fisheries, we would certainly agree that the act should address these in a focused manner.

We would also expect that significant changes or retrofits to our existing facilities would be encapsulated in the current act moving forward. Otherwise, where there are stable fisheries around existing facilities, retrospective application of the Fisheries Act serves no useful purpose from a regulatory perspective. We hope and we trust that policy documents would reflect that clearly.

On efficiencies and fisheries management objectives, which was a new element to section 6, among the factors that the minister now takes into account are fisheries management objectives. These can be very useful to our industry when designing facilities and operations to avoid unwanted impacts to fisheries. Unfortunately, in many parts of our country, FMOs are not clearly articulated and must be developed by the relevant authorities. Industry, the fisheries, and other stakeholders would like to see these developed throughout Canada in a timely manner.

On resourcing, and further on efficiencies, our greatest success in working with regulators before and since 2012 has been achieved through co-operation. Much more can be achieved when governments and industry experts coordinate their efforts in finding solutions, which has been our experience since 2012 in the explicit language around building stronger partnerships with industry.

To this end, however, our industry believes that the most important reason the public may have lost some of their faith and trust in the fisheries regulations is perhaps due to some of the departmental reductions that have occurred. Our members have found that the experts with whom they had once worked from Newfoundland all the way to B.C. have experienced some loss on the ground with these experts. They have either moved on or are simply no longer with the department. This makes for less understanding and less strength in our relationships with our regulators. We believe the government should give serious consideration to restoring some of these lost resources with the objective of re-establishing the productive working arrangements that have existed.

On offsetting and banking, and, again, efficiency, regulator guidance for offsetting of impacts by investments in fish productivity in other sites needs to be developed further. This practice, broadly understood as habitat banking, has tremendous potential for our industry. It allows flexibility for both industry and regulators to accommodate industrial activity, while maintaining healthy fisheries. We have elaborated on this in detail in our submission, and we believe it has been a forthcoming benefit to the 2012 amendments.

In closing, I've only really been able to touch on some of the elements that we've included in our submission, but I will reiterate several key points that will perhaps lead to discussion and questions. First, we believe habitat protection is still a fundamental element to the 2012 amendments. Second, a stable regulatory regime that is clear, predictable, transparent, and efficient best serves fisheries and the hydro power industry in this country.

Further, hydro power projects are capital intensive and they last a long time. We must be able to make investment decisions with confidence within a stable regulatory regime. There are several key critical concepts in the existing act that need to be clarified, most importantly, serious harm to fish. We believe this can be addressed through policy. However, if Parliament determines that a legislative adjustment is a better way to proceed, it can be accomplished through a simple amendment that we have included in our submission.

Further, I would like to emphasize that the ultimate success of the fisheries regulatory regime rests upon the people who administer it. To that point, we would love to see successful, qualified, skilled professionals in the department to work with in re-establishing those relationships. Finally, as my colleague Jacob has mentioned, hydro power is one of Canada's most powerful weapons in the fight against climate change. We need regulations that enable its development while ensuring Canadian fisheries are protected.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)