This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Loyola Hearn Conservative
Second reading (House), as of June 5, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.
It sets out management principles governing the exercise of responsibilities under the Act, and provides tools and authorities to improve the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to properly manage fisheries and fish habitat.
Part 1 establishes a regime for the proper management and control of fisheries. It allows the Minister to stabilize access and allocation in fisheries, issue fishing licences, conclude agreements with groups that participate in a fishery and issue fisheries management orders.
Part 2 provides for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
Part 3 provides for the control and management of aquatic invasive species.
Part 4 provides the necessary powers to administer and enforce the Act.
Part 5 establishes the Canada Fisheries Tribunal and sets out a system of licence sanctions for fisheries violations to be administered by that Tribunal, which will also consider appeals of licence decisions.
Part 6 provides for regulations and other related matters required for the administration of the Act.
Part 7 sets out transitional provisions, consequential amendments and coordinating amendments and repeals certain other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-45s:
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
moved that Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
February 23rd, 2007 / 12:10 p.m.
Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.
Conservative
Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off the debate today on Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries.
It is no exaggeration to say that the provisions of the bill represent some of the most sweeping changes made to the Fisheries Act since its inception well over a century ago.
Some of the decisions we will be making about the bill in the weeks and months to come will affect both our aquatic ecosystems and the future of tens of thousands of fellow Canadians in the decades to come.
With such an important piece of legislation before us, I hope my colleagues will indulge me a little if I take a step back and start by looking at the big picture of the fishery in Canada and, in so doing, putting it in context with the measures we are proposing.
Most Canadians know, either intuitively or through first-hand experience, of the importance of the fishery to the social and economic well-being of our nation. Most will know that we are the second largest country in the world, one of the foremost maritime nations on the planet and that we boast the world's longest coastline and the largest freshwater system.
Perhaps fewer know that we have the largest offshore economic zone, a zone equivalent to 37% of our total land mass. With such a maritime geography, it is no wonder our national fishery and aquaculture industries remain key to our economy. They provide over 100,000 direct jobs and substantial spinoff employment. More than $4.2 billion in fish products are exported every year. An estimated four million recreational fishers inject about $7 billion annually into the economy.
Since many Canadians live either on a coast or near freshwater, it is probably fair to say that most of us have or know someone who has some connection to the recreational or commercial fishery.
It is with great pride and pleasure that I stand before the House today with a very substantial piece of legislation in hand, legislation that cannot help but improve the state of the fishery and the lives of those who work in it.
I said at the outset that that enactment of the legislative proposals contained in the bill would make for the most fundamental, most sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act since it was first made law in 1868.
Although it has been subject to numerous reviews, the act has only been revised on a piecemeal basis over the years. Those changes tended to patch up holes for a while but we are in a new century and we need modern tools for a modern era.
Fisheries management is now a far more complex challenge and patchwork solutions will no longer do the job. The long and short of it is that the current act no longer responds to the evolving needs of the resource, nor does it reflect the expectations of those who fish the resource or of Canadians in general.
In our opinion, the act needs a complete modernization, which is exactly what Bill C-45 represents.
Before I get into some of the specifics of the legislation, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and input of our parliamentary oversight bodies on this file, the standing committees from both Houses and, of course, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. From licensing issues to aquatic invasive species and sanctions, three among many issues that these committees have identified as needing legislative action, committee members should quite rightly take great satisfaction in seeing some of their key concerns being addressed in the bill.
Bill C-45 follows on extensive cross country consultations and discussions over the past several years with all provinces and territories, as well as fishing interests, aboriginal groups and stakeholder groups. Through several processes, we have gained support for the broad principles of the bill from fishing stakeholders.
There is no doubt that we are asking a lot of the bill. We are seeking no less than to modernize the management of Canada's fishing industry, to enshrine conservation measures that safeguard the aquatic ecosystems and preserve our proud tradition of fishing on which tens of thousands of licensed fishermen depend, not to mention the survival of those who work in the spinoff jobs that the fishery provides. In the process, we want the new legislation to provide a framework that provides greater stability, transparency and predictability in all aspects of fisheries managements. It is a tall order for a single piece of legislation.
It is always a difficult proposition finding exactly the right balance between competing interests, but it is our job, frankly, to find that balance, one that does not compromise fundamental principles of good stewardship or good economics. I do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive. I think Bill C-45 walks that fine line quite nicely.
For the purposes of our discussion today, we cannot possibly do more than touch the surface of legislation that has over 250 sections. However, it is helpful to note that the current act does not provide direction or guidance to the minister or to DFO on the goals, objectives and management principles that should be the basis of fisheries and fish habitat management. It is that lack of direction and goals that we are correcting in Bill C-45.
The new version includes a preamble, a purpose clause and management principles that do define important values and objectives for fishing and conservation. They speak to such issues as stakeholder and public input in decisions that affect our fisheries; the fostering of cooperation with the provinces; the conservation and protection of fish habitat and its importance; the application of effective deterrents to illegal fishing; the economic viability of the resource and the industry; and managing consistent with existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Those are the major guidelines upon which those 250 sections are subsequently based.
I will start with the matter of accountability. There is no doubt that the system needs to be more open and more accountable. Consequently, we have removed from the act the absolute discretion of the minister but that does not mean the minister is no longer responsible for running the fishery. He or she will remain in charge of making the overall policy decisions and many other decisions. However, the new law says that ministers must answer for their actions and explain why decisions were taken. That is significant because it finally eliminates the perception that ministers can make allocation decisions based solely on politics.
I have heard my colleague, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, call on the minister to end the perceived political interference in the system. Bill C-45 would do exactly that.
In addition to wanting more transparent decisions, one of the things fishing groups tell us all the time is that they want the chance to formally sit down with DFO on a more regular basis. It does make sense that local stakeholders would want to take on some responsibility, authority and accountability of their own. The act would strengthen shared stewardship through fisheries management agreements, a very important provision in this new act. It would increase the influence of fishers over matters that affect their livelihood, which is where the establishment of advisory panels will prove useful. As well, members of the public would be given a more active role so that the process of making the rules is more transparent.
The legislation now recognizes in law the existing high level of intergovernmental collaboration by allowing the federal government to sign agreements with provinces and territories to set joint goals and coordinate policies and programs. It formally authorizes governor in council to delegate the appropriate fisheries management powers to a province or territory.
In our opinion, this too makes sense. Our regional counterparts have close ties to the communities and, in several cases, administer freshwater fisheries for us. Of course, jurisdictionally the provinces already play a role in managing the processing sector and aquaculture. It is clearly advantageous that we share information and harmonize our programs where possible.
The new act would create the ability for provincial regulations that protect fish habitat to be deemed equivalent to federal regulations in cases where they meet or beat the national standard. This would eliminate unnecessary duplication of regulation across levels of government and allow the department to focus its resources on projects that pose a higher risk to fish habitat.
I am very pleased to confirm that provincial and territorial governments are openly supportive of the act's overarching principles and proposed concepts. In fact, they unanimously showed their support for new legislation in the final communiqué of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers in their meetings last October.
I do not think it is an overstatement to say that at the heart and soul of the proposed new Fisheries Act are the provisions that will safeguard our aquatic ecosystems.
If we do not succeed in that endeavour, then all other considerations fall by the wayside. They provide the key proactive measures to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it is in the area of habitat protection where we find the most polarized views on the part of stakeholder groups. Environmental organizations, on the one hand, clearly and quite rightly, have concerns about any weakening of the protection offered by the act in its current form. Industry stakeholders, on the other hand, are looking for increased transparency, predictability and efficiency in decision making.
I must say something that is very important. The proposed legislation does not look to change the fundamental elements of the habitat protection provisions. It does seek, however, to make modest changes that would make the administration of these sections more effective in the conservation and protection of fish habitat and more efficient in its application.
A weakness in the current act is that it treats fish habitat protection and pollution prevention as issues separate from fisheries management.
Habitat protection in the new act becomes an integral element of proper fisheries management. This one item alone is probably the single most fundamental change to the current way of doing things. Under the new act, impacts to fish habitat must be considered prior to allocation decisions or issuance of licences. The minister's authority and duty to do this is stated explicitly in this legislation.
The new law would also extend the scope of inspectors' powers to cover any project that could be harmful to fish habitat, in addition to those dealing with the release of deleterious substances, as is now the case.
Inspectors will work with the public to help them better understand the provisions of this act but they will also be able to confirm that conditions of habitat authorizations are being met and, where necessary, give directions to remedy harm to fish habitat. Most important, these new inspector powers will support efforts to monitor the effectiveness of habitat regulatory requirements and allow the department to adapt its requirements based on what it learns.
Of course, fisheries officers will continue to support the habitat program by conducting high risk enforcement activities and supporting prosecutions where necessary.
Those are some of the changes the government is proposing to improve the effectiveness of the habitat protection provisions.
Members will recall that earlier I mentioned that we would allow provincial regulations to be used where they meet or exceed federal ones. However, the legislation, quite rightly, allows us to reinstate federal regulations where provincial ones are not doing the job.
What is also new is the enshrining in law, for the first time, a precautionary approach to conserve aquatic resources and putting in place a science based ecosystem approach to fisheries management. That is very important.
Some other highlights include the provisions concerning aquatic invasive species. We only have to think of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes to understand the incredible destruction that can be wrought by the wrong species invading the wrong habitat. Clause 69 would ensure, for the first time, that whenever aquatic invasive species are released, transported, imported or exported, such activities may be carried out only in accordance with regulations enacted by the governor in council.
Other new provisions would allow the minister or a designate to authorize the destruction of an invasive species in order to protect native habitats. The regulations would introduce a number of controls to manage invasive species in all Canadian waters.
There are many more features aimed at protecting our aquatic resources but the ones I just outlined should give members a flavour of the new act.
I would like to talk for a moment about enhancing competitiveness. Protecting the resource cannot help but improve the business of the fishery. Secured access and allocations to Canada's oldest industry are essential to the economic prosperity of fishing enterprises, fish processors and hundreds of coastal communities. Predictability is central to keeping the industry thriving and, by extension, those communities. Therein lines the problem.
Industry stakeholders see the current licensing and allocation process as unstable and unpredictable. Consequently, they find it hard to plan, raise capital or make rational business choices and that is why the legislation has specific provisions that improve the business operating environment of resource users. To that end, the new act would provide for stability, greater clarity and fairness.
The criteria and considerations for getting a licence for the first time will be sharply defined in the regulations resulting from the bill. The minister will make policy decisions for police. It will be the job of licence officers to issue licences to individuals based on these regulations.
We believe much peace of mind will be derived from the prospect of long term allocations, potentially up to 15 years, and will ease the burden of business uncertainty for fishing enterprises. It will permit them to plan ahead in greater confidence. Let me highlight that this move will benefit the individual fishers in the boat. Despite alarmist empty rhetoric to the contrary, which we will undoubtedly hear repeated by members in the days to come, this does not open the door to foreign countries to fish in Canadian waters. Let me say that again; this does not open the door for foreign countries to fish in Canadian waters.
In addition, the new act will provide the tools needed to sustainably manage the fisheries from oceans to plate with provincial partners and stakeholders. In effect, this will mean more value, more benefits and more support for Canada's rural coastal communities at a time of great need. On balance, those on the industry side will be very pleased with these changes to help them better plan and manage their activities.
Finally, all stakeholders want a better system to deal with rule breakers. Most involved in the fishing industries are committed to keeping the laws and regulations and are frustrated when they find some who are not and who are not dealt with in an effective way.
The current court based system is inefficient, ineffective and unwieldy. We need more clout to deal with people who step out of line. Currently the minister can only suspend or cancel a licence for breaches of licence conditions, not for breaches of regulations or general prohibitions of the act. All we can do is spend a lot of time and money dragging violators into court where fines are just about the only penalty.
The legislation envisages an arm's length Canada fisheries tribunal that would hear licence appeals and impose sanctions and financial penalties to licensed fishers in coastal fisheries. Minor violations would result in tickets and would only be heard by the tribunal if they were contested, just like a traffic ticket. The system would be fairer, more credible and more efficient. It would also be a more effective deterrent because some penalties would affect the ability of offenders to keep fishing, as well as hit their pocketbook. That is why a sanctions tribunal is so popular within the fishing community.
Other contraventions of the act, such as habitat destruction, infractions in inland fisheries managed by a province, and poaching would continue to be handled by the courts. I like the idea of using the penalty system to support conservation measures.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to say a few words about aboriginal participation in the fisheries.
The proposed act affirms that Parliament recognizes the importance of the fisheries to many aboriginal communities. Aboriginal groups bring great knowledge and experience to modern fisheries management. The bill provides first nations and other aboriginal groups a more direct role in the management of their harvesting of fish. This would be done through such mechanisms as fisheries management agreements where details on involvement in management and the decision making process could be identified.
The proposed bill also provides for the consideration of traditional knowledge in decision making where such information is available to DFO. In addition, one of the guiding principles in the bill stipulates that those involved in the administration of the act must seek to manage fisheries and conserve and protect fish and fish habitat in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional protection provided for existing aboriginal and treaty rights.
As my allotted time is almost up, I will bring my remarks to a close. As the minister has said many times, his job is to sustainably manage our public fish and oceans resources on behalf of Canadians and for the maximum benefit of Canadians. He does not own the fish, nor does his department or the government as a whole. As Canadians we all own this common property resource and passage of this legislation will help us in this task.
This bill should pass through second reading quickly and move on to committee where it can be improved, if necessary. The time to act is now. The livelihood of too many Canadians rests on our decision to give thoughtful, but reasonably expeditious, passage to this legislation. I look forward to the House passing it.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech.
About Bill C-45, I can say that the protection of fish habitat is very important for Atlantic Canada. There are some facts to consider and if we really want to conserve those habitats, we need legislation that protects them from invasive species and limits pollution risks.
Let me give a quick example. When someone wants to build an incinerator near a body of water, like Chaleur Bay, in my area, it seems that the Fisheries Act of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans offers absolutely no regulations to protect nearby habitats. I do not see in Bill C-45, which we are debating, the improvements that could guarantee the protection of fish habitats.
In spite of that, could the hon. member reassure me in this regard or could he simply say that, all things considered, there is nothing in the act to protect the projects situated near a body of water when new infrastructures are built?
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know the issue to which my hon. colleague referred. I wish he had told us about the improvements he would like to see in the act to actually do what he wants to do.
The cornerstone of this act is still the prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It is still clearly stated in the bill. It has not been weakened in any way and, in fact, has been strengthened. If there is a project that is deemed to do any of those things, harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, it clearly comes under the purview of the act and its regulations.
Although it was also a cornerstone of the old act, if the department then said the project was going to cause some sort of disruption and endanger the fish and so on and measures needed to be put in place, mitigation measures or things that would eliminate the problem or reduce its harm or whatever the measures were, those measures were not enforceable under the old act. In fact, in the new act those measures will be enforceable.
The issue the member is speaking to specifically comes under the purview of Environment Canada. If he wants to strengthen certain parts of other environmental legislation with regard to air pollution, the incinerator I think he is referring to, then he ought to do that, but I can assure him that as it relates to the protection of fish and fish habitat, this act is even stronger than the old one.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was originally planning to ask a question about the consultations or so-called consultations on the bill before us today. Following the question of my Liberal colleague from New Brunswick on the Bennett file in Belledune, however, I would like to ask two questions.
With respect to the Bennett file in Belledune, in theory, the minister should be able to act under section 35 of the existing legislation, given that we are effectively finding ourselves in a situation where an incinerator has been built—incidentally, construction was completed—in Belledune, near Chaleur Bay. This raises special concern because of the resource in and around Chaleur Bay.
In fact, lobsters caught around Belledune are not for human consumption; they are cast aside because they are too polluted. With a new incinerator, one can wonder, and I think that concerns are legitimate. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary on that.
With respect to the consultations, there are people who do not feel they have been consulted at all on Bill C-45. In particular, I will mention Marc Couture, the president of the Association des crabiers gaspésiens, and Daniel Desbois, the president of the Association des crabiers de la Baie, who said the following about Bill C-45, in response to a statement made by the parliamentary secretary in a recent press release about the legislation.
After reading this statement about Bill C-45...which arrived at the last minute like a Christmas present, knowing that we will not have the time to read the bill, let alone make sense of some of its provisions, we fishers inform you that at no time have we been consulted in any way about any change in connection with the Fisheries Act and that we formally oppose any change that could be made to the act without us first being able to discuss the matter with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised two issues.
He will know, or he should know, that section 35 of the Fisheries Act actually is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment. If he has questions about how that was applied to the project in Belledune, then I suggest he take them up with the Minister of the Environment.
The project was reviewed by scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it relates to fish and fish habitat. They suggested a certain change to the design of that incinerator and that was done. They were satisfied that it had no fisheries concerns. If my colleague has some other concerns, he ought to take them up with the Minister of the Environment.
The fact is that over a span of several years the department conducted its largest ever engagement process in a number of different ways. Between August 2005 and December 2006 the department met with 305 different Canadian stakeholder groups to discuss the modernization of the fisheries and the various initiatives that would be required and they are reflected in this act.
Was every fishing group consulted about this? Probably not. We live in a large country with some 30 million people. Of course we did not take this--
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, the myth lives on that there was consultation. The reality is that Shawn Atleo, regional chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, who does not live that far away from the parliamentary secretary, was never consulted on the bill prior to its tabling on December 13. Phil Morlock is the head of the CSIA, a $7 billion sport fishing industry in this country. One would think the government would at least have picked up the phone and told him that something was coming. The government said not a word.
The fact is the parliamentary secretary himself said in a press conference that the bill would lead to further ITQs, individual transferrable quotas, which leads to privatization of a common property resource.
I have only one question for the member now, but I will have many more later. Will he now offer us the opportunity to put in the preamble of the bill the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Comeau v. Canada that the fisheries is a common property resource? Will he at least stand up today and admit that will be done?
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should look at the Chair because time will run out and I will cut him off.
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Speaker, it was getting quite loud there but no more accurate. I was in a meeting with the member where he made the point that the first nations were not consulted about this, Phil Fontaine, for example.
We actually showed him a consultation deck, where we had met with Mr. Fontaine to talk about initiatives in this new fisheries act, and somehow we did not use the right words or something when we talked to the aboriginal first nations.
With respect, we have also told him a number of times that if he wanted to put in the actual wording of the Supreme Court decision in Comeau's Sea Food's, we were quite happy to entertain that.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, I hope to lower the noise for just a little bit, if I may, in respect of my hon. colleagues.
I am proud to be standing here today to be talking about this significant act, there is no doubt about it. This is something that replaces an act that existed for well over 137 years, so certainly we take this very seriously.
What I would like to do in my allotted is just point out some of the questions that surround this particularly thick piece of legislation. Questions, I am afraid, probably outnumber all of the comments, all of the negativity, and even the positive comments that come from this. That is what is troubling to us.
For the record, we had requested the government to send this to a committee before second reading, to widen the scope and to gain some insight from across this country. This will not be addressed by sending the legislation to committee after second reading. Unfortunately, it was dismissed and here we are finding ourselves today at second reading.
I would like to start, if I may, with the few notes that I have made and delve into the act itself, as the parliamentary secretary did earlier. Some of those I will take some issue with; some I will have some positive comments about.
The provisions of Bill C-45 represent a significant redirection in the role of public policy with respect to the fisheries on our coast and our inland fisheries. Quite significantly, the devolution of authority appears significant enough to ensure a far greater role for the provinces in terms of management and activities associated with the conduct of the fisheries, as well as a new empowered role for fishers, communities and the organizations which either represent them, or more importantly, employ them. As we all know and my colleagues know, this has been going on for many years, the idea of co-management and the idea of a greater say, which leads me back to my first point.
It is unfortunate that here we are, taking the first step toward a regime where we can have more say in the fishery by the stakeholders, but yet this bill itself did not receive the same process. Suffice it to say, we are not off to a positive start when it comes to recommendations, and certainly with the input.
Let me discuss some of the initial recommendations, and again, my speech will be filled with many questions, some doubts, some positive comments, and some negative comments. But mostly clarification, so that hopefully, through the course of this debate, a lot of this clarification can take place. I would also like some clarification on how far the ministry is prepared to go when it goes to committee, if it goes to committee after second reading.
Let me begin with the preamble. When it comes to the preamble, one of the things it says is: “the conservation and protection of fish habitat and the prevention of the pollution of waters frequented by fish.” It also says that: “Parliament intends that Canada’s fisheries be managed sustainably”.
First of all, we have to talk about “managed sustainably”. There is need for more clarification on this issue and to flush out exactly what it is we are talking about here. The act is a little bit loose in many areas and unfortunately, that would be one of them.
It says “Parliament intends”, and there we have to deal with that as a contentious issue. Members will find that a lot of this act contains a lot of intends, wishes, mays, and all the things that sound great but lack a lot of teeth. Therefore, we are hoping that this part of the bill can be changed and amended. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I do not feel that it can be done to our satisfaction by going to committee after second reading, and this troubles me.
The preamble also states:
WHEREAS Parliament intends that this legislative framework be applied in a manner that fosters cooperation with the provinces and with bodies established under land claims agreements--
Therein lies, with some of the application principles, some of the doubts in some of the feedback that we are getting. No doubt about it, we are getting a lot of positive responses from the provinces. We are also getting a few questions, and a lot of provinces are also, in their own departments, still trying to go through the legal framework of this to wrestle with some of the concepts.
Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms the existence of aboriginal and treaty rights. It also talks about the stable access.
After that, we find that there is a contentious issue in the preamble itself. It states:
WHEREAS Parliament is committed to maintaining the public character of the management of fisheries and fish habitat;
Many people have commented and questioned, and no doubt about it we will hear a lot of comments and questions from my hon. colleague in the NDP about this particular issue, which I am looking forward to hearing, that the public character of the fishery itself has to be addressed and is something that cannot be addressed within the scope of a committee after second reading.
As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that in many instances in Parliament, as well as the standing committees, many of the attempts to fix a preamble cannot be done in committee after second reading. In many cases, it can be ruled out of order or when it comes back to the House, it can be ruled out of order by the Speaker. Therefore, it puts us in a bit of a bind. As my colleague pointed out in his questions and comments, where is the charter decision from a few years back?
There is another issue that is not addressed here and there is ample opportunity to address it within the preamble as one of the guiding principles, so to speak. There is an issue in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada with regard to fleet separation and, more importantly, trust agreements. I think there is room in the preamble to address this issue, as mentioned to me by many groups.
Vertical integration will scare a lot of fishermen. It has always been the policy whereby what trust agreements do is freeze out the inshore fishermen and, therefore, is the cause of grave concern across this country. Some may like this policy, but for the most part they do not.
That is not addressed in this particular act, as it should be. I would compel the minister to please do this, to provide the standing committee the power to do this and, I go back to my original comment, to do this in committee before second reading would have accomplished this.
I will now go to some of the clauses beyond the preamble itself and again I have grave concerns as to whether the preamble can be fixed in this manner of going to committee after second reading. I would implore the minister to answer this question at some point in his speech. I am assuming he will be speaking during this debate.
There are specific clauses which should be examined. There is need for a very significant strengthening of a number of specific clauses. The following, while attempting to be comprehensive, is not exhaustive given additional concerns of respected clauses, not referred to, will likely arise.
I will begin with clause 3. There is the need to ensure that those participating in the fishery are clearly defined. For example, in clause 3 there is reference to organizations as being licence holders while in clause 43, the minister may enter into fisheries management agreements with an “organization”. Clarification around the term “organization” is certainly necessary within the scope of this bill. It keeps it open ended.
I go back to the theme that I talked about in the beginning. There are a lot of open ended variables involved here that need to be clarified, the scope of which, after second reading, is likely not going to be.
Let me go to clause 6. Under the provisions of clause 6, the application of principles, there is the need to strengthen these provisions which will ensure that the minister will take the strongest possible actions in order to ensure that the fisheries are managed in a manner consistent with sustainable development based on the principles, of course, of conservation. The wording of this clause does not necessarily reflect that priority. Again, it is a major question that needs to be clarified.
The implications of clause 7 require careful examination as well. On the surface, it would appear that the minister will be empowered to enter into agreements with the provinces to further the purpose of the act as contained in clause 2, which effectively will devolve management decisions to the provinces. Therefore, I have no contentious issue with that.
However, a lot of clarification is needed on questions of funding. It is touched on in this act, but what does it imply? Does it mean they must or they may? Again, we go back to that concept. If we look at some of the language that is contained within this bill, we will see that there are a lot of variables surrounding this particular issue. For instance, “The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with a province to further the purpose of this Act, including an agreement with respect to one or more of the following”. Again I go back to the issue of “may”. It facilitates cooperation, that is true, but there needs to be more clarification.
I understand from my hon. colleague that he is getting favourable responses from the provinces, and obviously we are off on a positive step. However, what he refers to takes place prior to the tabling of the bill, and I will touch on that in just a moment. The consultation process that my colleagues talk about in the Bloc as well as the NDP is an extremely contentious issue and one that needs further discussion, far greater than the scope of a committee that follows second reading.
Under the provisions of clauses 11 to 13, the federal government, through the minister, will be able to undertake programs and projects. The scope and range of these programs and projects are widely spread and imply that the federal government will be financially responsible for funding them both. Again, this is a matter which requires careful consideration.
Under the provisions of clause 14, “The Minister may”, and again I stress the word “may” “in order to carry out the purpose of this Act”, strike advisory panels. However, that discretion allows the minister not to strike panels as well. He may do in whatever case that he deems necessary. Therefore, the power, we would think, becomes far more stretched, far more varied, more wielding under the situation of “may”. For example, at the end of this day, I may jump off the House of Commons right into the lake, but I may not. The chances are I will not, but I may. So hon. members will get the point of--
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
The hon. minister just asked if that was a promise. I will take that under advisement.
Clause 15, which again provides a minister with discretionary powers, says, “The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research” obtain information from any person that the minister considers relevant to conservation, proper management and prevention of pollution of waters. Again, clarification is needed.
The apparent user fee structure in clauses 16 to 17 requires clarification with respect to fees charged for the service or the use of a facility.
There are many other sections in this and a lot of it deals with the first half of this bill. It troubles me greatly that so many people have contacted our office, and many offices of other members of Parliament and DFO, about their concerns on the bill. Again, the theme is very simple, questions, questions, questions. Remember, we are replacing an act that existed for 137 years. We have to ask the essential question. Was due diligence exercised? I do not think it was in this case. There were too many questions and too many people asking them.
Under clause 25, while the minister “must” take into account in exercising the powers the need to conserve the fishery while also securing access to the fishery. The question arises as to how these are prioritized. At the same time the minister may take into account matters such as adjacency and historical participation, which require careful consideration due to the matters arising out of, say, the Marshall decision, which took into account historical attachment and adjacency issues. Do these issues relate to the licence holder specifically or can adjacency and historical participation relate to the historical attachment of fishers from communities? What are we opening up? Again, this a question that needs verification. The law has to be translated for all stakeholders. The law has to be carefully vetted for all stakeholders. For communities, we have ourselves a new concept. Who does that include? We need to ask that question.
Also I will address clause 36. This very important. Clause 36 refers to aquaculture, a very simple little addition that definitely needs more clarification. Under “Leases”, it says, “The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes”.
I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans now. It is a very non-partisan group that gets along very well and it has a great chair. However, if memory serves me correctly, and I was not a member of Parliament at the time, around 2003 the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans took the decision that aquaculture would have its own special unit, or at least the characteristics of its own special unit within the government. From my understanding, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was a part of that committee in 2003.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I thank the member for Random—Burin—St. George's for clarifying that. He was also a member at the time.
If it says in clause 36 that the minister may issue releases for aquaculture purposes, where is the rest? If the minister truly believes, as he did in 2003, about the special rules and regulations around aquaculture and its effect on the environment and all fisheries and all stakeholders, why is it not addressed here? Again, that is another question.
Clause 37 refers to the allocation the minister can make in fisheries “not managed by a province”. The question here goes back to the provisions under clauses 7 and 23 with respect to delegation and whether it is possible that the federal minister, in the wake of agreements or a delegation, would actually have very few fisheries over which to have authority to allocate. Again, the government may have a good answer for that, but yet not vetted through the right people, the stakeholders, and not translated fully.
The provisions in the bill that deal with the tribunal is one that is extremely plausible. We find, for the most part, with a few minor changes, they are certainly acceptable to our country. Unfortunately, what we have here is an omnibus bill that covers everything. Clauses 130 to 133 concern the alternative measures to judicial proceedings. The only concern here is to ensure that those who violate the provisions of the act of a serious nature are dealt with in a manner befitting the degree of frequency of violations. Again, we go back to the tribunal aspect of this act, which we feel is a positive one, but yet the first part of the act with co-management is a major issue.
I would like to bring up a few concerns. The parliamentary secretary in his opening speech said that they consulted a lot of people, that they had a lot people give them feedback. Yesterday the minister said that it was mostly positive. I beg to differ. Herein lies some of the negative stuff. It is not only negative, but it raises questions as well. Everybody wants to know.
For example, Bill C-45 would change all that with clauses 43 to 46. This comes from the Fisherman Life submission by Christopher Harvey who has said that on the fisheries management agreements with any organization, which in his view represents a class of persons, the minister is left with an unfettered discretion. He has problems as well with clause 37, making allocations among any groups.
A letter to me stated, “We also have recently read an article in the Peninsula News about the Liberal caucus position on Bill C-45, and it mentioned you had concerns”.
The stakeholders across Canada are voicing disapproval with the bill.
The common theme here is lack of consultation. After second reading to go to committee is not the proper way to management. Therefore, I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
Let the stakeholders have their say.
