1 / 18

Bill C-45 Deficiencies

Bill C-45 Deficiencies. Concerns from Canadian Environmental Organizations. Susanna D. Fuller, Marine Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre February 26 th , 2007. Two Perspectives. What We Like About the Act. Habitat Protection – conditions of authorizations are now enforceable

cleta
Download Presentation

Bill C-45 Deficiencies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bill C-45 Deficiencies Concerns from Canadian Environmental Organizations Susanna D. Fuller, Marine Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre February 26th, 2007

  2. Two Perspectives

  3. What We Like About the Act • Habitat Protection – conditions of authorizations are now enforceable • Inclusion of sustainable development, ecosystem approach and precautionary approach • Inclusion of fish habitat provisions in fisheries management perspectives • Listing of Aquatic Invasive Species

  4. What We Don’t Like • Increased discretionary nature embedded in Bill C-45 (“may”, “shall”) • Ministerial discretion and downloading to the provinces • Provisions could easily lead to privatization, no protection of public right to the fishery • Legalizing of current policies, that have not had public review nor are they embedded in sustainable development

  5. What We Don’t Like • Immediate needs of fishermen (tribunals, LaRocque), against the long term protection of the resource • No provision to ensure owner operator policies are legislated • There is a focus on economics over ecosystems • Lack of meaningful consultation

  6. Purpose • The purpose of this Act is to provide for the sustainable development of Canada’s seacoast and inland fisheries, through the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat and the proper management and control of fisheries. • No reference to maintaining the public nature of the fishery

  7. Purpose / Principles • Define sustainable development, it should not under ministerial discretion • We ask that sustainable development be defined and suggest that the definition in the 1987 Bruntland Report be adopted. It is as follows: «Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»

  8. Principles • Seek to apply an ecosystem approach • Seek to apply a precautionary approach Seeking to apply is not enough, nor is it testable in a court of law

  9. Precautionary Approach • Bill C-45 definition: “both” high scientific uncertainty AND a risk of serious harm …..cost effective measures that they consider proportional to the potential severity of the risk; • Interpretation is not consistent with that outlined in international documents or agreements including the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (compatibility) • No shift in the burden of proof, no wide application in decision making, not just decision rules!

  10. Agreements with Provinces • Concerns about downloading to the provinces who do not have the resources (science or enforcement) • Increased discretion at the provincial level • If provinces are not seen to be doing a good job, federal government can regain responsibilities, BUT this has never happened following a downloading in any department

  11. Habitat Protection Section 25(1) Minister must take into account (a) the need to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat • No proactive identification or protection of fish habitat • No alternative management as opposed to risk management • No assessment of adverse impacts

  12. Comparison to MSA • Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)(1976) • Authority to Management Councils to “designate zones where, and periods when, fishing shall be limited, or shall be permitted only by specified types of fishing vessels or with specified types and quantities of fishing gear”

  13. Comparison to MSA Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Amendments to MSA in 1996 • Regional councils must incorporate habitat conservation measures into their fisheries management plans. (16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(7) • SFA mandated that Fisheries Service provide specific EFH information and recommendations to the councils, and FMPs to be amended within 24 months to designate and protect EFH. • EIS required of all gear types

  14. Comparison to MSA • Proactive closures of more than half a million square miles to bottom trawling (Alaska, California, freeze the footprint) • MSA (2006)- clarified the Act to provide that authority to protect habitat includes the authority to designate zones to protect deep sea coral.

  15. Habitat Protection • HADD authorization, and related policy (EPMP, Risk vs alternatives) • Provisions for class screenings undermine CEAA • Cumulative Effects, SEAs • Definition of undertaking – does not adequately deal with activities (ie, ATVs, fishing gear)

  16. Aquaculture • Section 36. The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes • No provisions included in this section • No review of sustainable development of aquaculture • No public consultation

  17. Next Steps • Bring Bill C-45 back to the committee • Most concerns are with Part I-IV, address these concerns • Strengthen the Act • Ensure broad consultation and time for submissions to committee • Address critiques of Auditor General concerns • Ensure that the Fisheries Act is consistent with international obligations • We do want a new Fisheries Act

  18. A Fisheries Act for Canadians • Canadians deserve a strong Fisheries Act • We should be proud of our Fisheries Act • We can’t afford to not do it right • The “balance” needs to shift • We need to ensure that DFO has the capacity to do its job • Fish, fish habitat and coastal communities need to have legal protection

More Related