HABITAT MANAGEMENT 29 



Thus, the operator would not be given carte blanche to 

 operate in disregard to habitat once he has the Depart- 

 ment's approval, but he would be able to place reason- 

 able reliance on it. Conversely, the Department would 

 assume some responsibility for the consequences of the 

 terms and conditions it attaches to approvals. In all those 

 cases where approvals are not issued, the provisions of 

 the Fisheries Act should apply as they do now. Thus, 

 developers would have strong incentives to avoid damag- 

 ing habitat. 



For pollution control, these site-specific procedures 

 (for approvals recommended above) should replace the 

 reliance on uniform standards such as those set out in the 

 several industry sector regulations. Applying uniform 

 effluent standards for the Pacific region, let alone the 

 whole of Canada, is quite inappropriate. In some situa- 

 tions they will be too lax, in others too stringent, and they 

 inevitably fail to take account of the peculiarities of each 

 aquatic system. A stream rich in fish values needs a 

 higher standard than one that is insignificant for fish; a 

 small stream with limited dispersal capacity can assimi- 

 late less effluent than a large river: the quality of water- 

 courses receiving many discharges can be maintained 

 only with higher standards than one receiving few, and so 

 on. Therefore I recommend — 



14. Tlie industry sector effluent regulations under section 

 33 of the Act should he rescinded for the Pacific 

 region. 



Such standards, if they are retained at all, should be used 

 as guidelines in formulating site-specific approvals only, 

 to be modified and applied for individual projects as cir- 

 cumstances warrant. 



Finally, the present pollution control arrangements 

 involve a great deal of duplication between the federal 

 and provincial authorities. I consider it important that 

 the federal government retain its independent authority 

 to determme standards required for protecting fish, but 

 administrative overlap and double permitting should be 

 avoided. I therefore recommend — 



15. For discharges of effluent for wliich pro>incial pollu- 

 tion control permits are issued, tlK' DepartnK'nt's 

 approvals should be integrated into the pollution con- 

 trol permits. 



Public Consultation 



With effluent discharges being approved through more 

 site-specific procedures, the Department will need to 

 gather complete information about proposed projects 

 including information and advice from the interested 

 public. Several participants in the Commission's public 

 hearings criticized the federal government for failing to 



consult with the public before the special effluent regula- 

 tions were approved for the Amax Mine: 



There was no offering of public input, no 

 opportunity for public input by the Nishgas, 

 either on the federal process leading to the 

 special regulations, or in the provincial pro- 

 cess, leading to the permit being issued by the 

 Pollution Control Branch ..,.'' 



Clearly, the Department should be prepared to con- 

 sider the views of members of the public who, through 

 their interest in fishenes, might be affected by proposed 

 major developments that impinge on the resource. I 

 therefore recommend — 



16. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (or his desig- 

 nate) should have the explicit authority to convene 

 public hearings concxTiiing any proposed project or 

 developnK'nt that might threaten fish habitat. 



1 do not propose that public heanngs be required for 

 all developments: many are too small or their potential 

 effects on habitat too trivial to warrant full public review. 

 But I urge the government to exercise this authority in all 

 other cases unless another agency convenes heanngs that 

 provide an opportunity for the Department to explain the 

 development's fish habitat implications. 



ffabitat Enforcement Issues 



General enforcement requirements are covered in 

 Chapter 16. The specialized enforcement unit 1 propose 

 there would be responsible for habitat offences. Here, I 

 consider certain matters relating specifically to enforce- 

 ment of habitat protection legislation. These are monitor- 

 ing, the due diligence defence and the procedures fol- 

 lowed in laying charges. 



Monitoring At the Commission's public hearings the 

 Department was frequently criticized for failing to moni- 

 tor industrial operations once they had been assessed 

 through referral procedures. I view this as a serious 

 shortcoming. Moreover, my recommendations in this 

 chapter for mitigation and compensation for habitat 

 damage, and for formal Departmental approval of pro- 

 jects and developments, will call for even greater atten- 

 tion to monitoring. Thus — 



17. Tlie DepartuKut slM)uld develop, in cooperation with 

 the prov ince. a program to easure systematic nnmitor- 

 ing of all industrial and other operations in the Pacific 

 region that have the potential for inflicting significant 

 damage to fish habitat. 



In developing this program the Department's habitat 

 managers should work closely with enforcement officers. 

 And opportunities will likely arise for mutually advanta- 

 geous cooperation between federal and provincial 

 authorities in the monitoring effort. 



