24 IIVHIIM MWAlilMINr 



invciiti>iv shouki Ih" sh.iroil between the two uovcrnmcnts 

 in pri>CH)rtK>iis that shoiilil K- ncgolLilcil, I he loial eosl 

 will depend iip*)n the detail ot the int'ormatiDn smight. 



1 he inventory should be designed to provide hydrolog- 

 ital ilala rei.|uire».i b\ the federal aiui provincial authori- 

 ties as well iis the basic inCormation needcil lor estimating 

 the capabilities of water systems to support fish popula- 

 tions, especially salmon. Beyond that, it should identify 

 opportunities to enhance the productivity ot habitats 

 through stream improvements and other measures. Con- 

 sideration should be given to classifying i)r zoning 

 watersheds according lo their potential for producing fish 

 to assist in coherent watershed and regional planning. 



Habitat .Maiiagciiient Objectives 



The Department's stated objective in habitat manage- 

 ment is "to conserve and develop habitat of federally 

 managed aquatic species in a manner that will serve 

 fisheries resource management goals."" While I cannot 

 criticize this general principle, the Department .should be 

 guided by more specific objectives. This should be done 

 for two reasons. First, as I explain in the next chapter, the 

 Department needs explicit fish-production targets to pro- 

 vide long-term management objectives, and these targets 

 must rest on assumptions about the productive capacity 

 of the habitat in the future. There I propo.se that these 

 targets be based upon full utilization of the existing 

 natural habitat and additional production resulting from 

 enhancement. Second, explicit objectives will strengthen 

 the Department's hand in dealing with other resource 

 industries that threaten habitat by providing a baseline 

 against which proposed operations in a watershed can be 

 assessed. Without being able to point to targets of its own 

 in support of its positions, the Department is left to react 

 defensively, and often negatively, to proposals. 



The federal government's approach to habitat protec- 

 tion must be consistent with its responsibilities for fisher- 

 ies resources generally. Along with its constitutional 

 authority over fisheries, it has a corresponding duty to 

 ensure that fisheries resources are conserved and used 

 wisely for the benefit of Canadians as a whole. This point 

 deserves emphasis because too often the line dividing fed- 

 eral and provincial responsibilities in this area becomes 

 blurred, leaving the impression that the public being 

 served by both governments is the same. TTiis is not the 

 case: in managing Pacific fisheries the federal govern- 

 ment is responsible to Canadians, not only in British 

 Columbia, but also in other parts of Canada. The need to 

 recognize this broader federal responsibility and accoun- 

 tability will be even more pressing as the fisheries are 

 rationalized and public revenues emerge under my pro- 

 posals in Part III of this report. 



Those with interests in fish resources sometimes sug- 

 gest that no habilal should ever be sacrificed lor other 

 purposes. Such a rigid policy is unrealistic in view of the 

 broat! and interrelated patterns of economic and social 

 development on the I'acific coast. It cannot be assumed 

 that Canadians as a whole would be better off were all 

 fish habitat frozen in their current state, if indeed that 

 could be done, in some cases, fish habitat can be 

 improved or expanded, yielding fisheries benefits exceed- 

 ing the sacrifices in other resource values; in other cases, 

 another form of development will yield benefits greater 

 than the value of habitat lost. Fish habitat, like all other 

 resources, must be used flexibly in light of changing cir- 

 cumstances if Canadians are to realize maximum benefits 

 over time. 



So, in exercising its authority over fisheries, the federal 

 government should ensure that habitat is not sacrificed to 

 other competing values, such as forestry, mining, hydro- 

 electric power, and land development in any instance 

 unless it is assured that benefits will accrue to Canadians 

 that will at least offset the loss in fish production capac- 

 ity. My following recommendations provide an opera- 

 tional framework for implementing this general policy. 



The specific role of the Department of Fisheries and 

 Oceans should be to ensure that the productive capacity 

 of natural fish habitat is protected against damage from 

 industrial activities and, if damage is unavoidable in par- 

 ticular instances, that full compensation will be provided 

 through enhanced productive capacity elsewhere. Thus — 



2. The policy of the Department should be to ensure tiiat 

 the total fish production capacity in the region will not 

 be diminished as a result of industrial and other activi- 

 ties that impinge upon fish habitat. Identifiable and 

 measurable harm to fish habitat should be tolerated 

 for any particular development only if the damage is 

 fully compensated through expanded fish-production 

 capacity elsewhere. 



This proposal implies the need for firm legislation to pro- 

 tect fish habitat from activities that threaten it and to 

 enable the Department to function from a position of 

 strength. I return to legislative provisions later in this 

 chapter. 



Compensation Policy 



To ensure that the capacity to produce fish is main- 

 tained in the face of new industrial projects and other 

 developments that threaten it, the Department needs 

 clear operational guidance. My proposals are aimed at 

 ensuring that all feasible measures will be taken to avoid 

 or minimize damage to fish habitat; only if these cannot 

 fully preserve its productive capacity should compensa- 

 tion be considered. 



