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 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:
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The amendment is in order. Questions and comments. Questions and comments. Debate.
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not mind speaking, as you are asking, but I would like to understand where we are at. I appreciate that an amendment was moved, but what is going on? Is the amendment in order or not? I would really like to speak to Bill C-45, but I would like to better understand where we are at.
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member is asking a reasonable question. The member before you moved an amendment, and we are now having a debate on this amendment.
The hon. member has the floor, unless he wants to give it to the next speaker.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not know what I can say on this issue, but I would invite you to hear this.
I understand that an amendment has been moved. We can discuss it if the Speaker so desires. Once the amendment is disposed of, we normally expect to have a period of questions and comments following the Liberal member's speech. At the end of the normal 10-minute period of questions and comments, it is then my turn to speak to Bill C-45.
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member is absolutely right, and this is why I asked, in both official languages and repeatedly, if there were questions and comments. No one rose. That is why I ask you to continue the debate, since you were next on the list. If you want to give your turn to someone else, I will proceed in that fashion.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the question and comment period following the member's speech. I heard you ask if there were any questions on the amendment. I do not have questions on the amendment but I do have questions on the member's speech.
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Unfortunately, you should have answered when I invited members to make comments. We are now on debate and you have the floor to make your speech.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, things should be a lot clearer as to what we are supposed to be doing because, now, there will not be a question and comment period with regard to the speech that the member just made.
I have no problem with having to make my speech now since I cannot question the Chair's decisions.
Regarding Bill C-45, first I would like to state two facts that could be considered anecdotal. What are we eating today in the lobby? Cod fillets. The question is this: where does that cod come from? Where was it harvested? Do you know that the answer to that question is likely to be in Russia or in Asia? That is also part of the situation. In this sense, Bill C-45 is far from addressing that particular problem.
The second element I would like to point out is simply that, in my opinion, Bill C-45 is an unfinished piece of work. We will have an opportunity to talk about this during the debate and also in committee. We will support the principle of the bill because it is indeed an unfinished piece of work. In this sense, I will say right now, as I mentioned earlier, that there is a serious problem with regard to consultation.
It is with great interest that I heard the proposal made by my Liberal colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not to defer, but to suspend the work for six months, thus allowing for a much wider consultation than the one we have now. The evidence is found in the letter that I will read once again, perhaps a little more quietly. I want to take this opportunity because several parliamentarians and, particularly, I suppose, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, are here, since it is his bill that we are discussing today. I will send a copy. The minister has received a copy. This is about a statement made by the parliamentary secretary in relation to Bill C-45.
Having looked at this statement concerning Bill C-45 that was sent to us ... at the very last minute, even though it was known that we, the fishers, would not have time to read it and particularly to understand some wording that appears to have a double meaning, we wish to inform you that we have not been consulted at any time about any change that would affect the new fisheries act and that we categorically oppose any changes that might be made without our being able to discuss them with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
This letter is signed by Marc Couture, president of the Gaspé crab fishers association, and Daniel Desbois, president of the Bay crab fishers association.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Before I continue, would it be possible to have a little more quiet around me? I have a lot of difficulty concentrating. I hear the voices of everyone else more than my own. Some members have voices that are a little louder and that carry.
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Order, please.
As a courtesy to the hon. member and to all other members, would those who are having private conversations please have them in their respective lobbies so the Chair can hear the member who is speaking right now?
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, these may be fascinating conversations and I might eventually want to join in, but right now I would like the hon. members to be able to hear me and, and some members having louder voices than others, this can be disruptive.
Anyway, these people, these honest citizens, namely the crab fishers and their representatives, say and write that they have not been consulted. Should we believe them? I think so. They have not only said so; they have put it in writing. It is a very important issue, one that was raised as one of the main criticisms in our discussions with department officials about Bill C-45. If the consultations have not been carried out by the department, I pledge—hopefully the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will be in agreement—that we will carry out these consultations. It is extremely important that the people in the fishing community, who are directly or indirectly affected by fisheries management, have the right and opportunity to express their opinions on every aspect of this bill.
It is true that the bill is coming to us 137 or 138 years after the existing law was enacted, because it has never been amended in all those years. Also, we have to say that, sadly, the fishing industry is grappling with a host of problems. I can only speak of Quebec, but in Quebec the fishing industry is in crisis, be it in the shrimp,crab, lobster or groundfish sectors, or the cod sector, of course. Another crisis nowadays is the one pitting those who would abolishing seal hunting against the seal hunters.
There is certainly no shortage of crises. When I say that there are crises galore, I am speaking only of Quebec. If I were to talk about the Atlantic provinces, there would be more crises and the problem would only grow bigger. A little further, if I turned to the Great Lakes, I would be talking about another crisis: invasive species. I could also talk about western Canada, where the issue of salmon fisheries in the Fraser River was under consideration for several months. That is yet another crisis.
The bill has arrived in Parliament but it is incomplete from several standpoints. The legislation in question does need to be brought up to date; it was enacted 138 years ago and it needs more teeth. Any offence committed in the fisheries ends up in criminal court. That is the reality: you go to court no matter how minor the offence. This can result in delays and problems. Thus, we can see the creation of an administrative tribunal as a positive step.
Yet, we must be vigilant and have a critical eye and, for this reason, the consultation period is extremely important. I think it is quite proper for people to have the time to review the bill in question in order to express an informed opinion. This would allow parliamentarians to conduct a debate, as we are doing today, and to work in the interests of those involved in the industry once the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Some people believe that the fisheries are not a big deal and that the issue only comes up on Fridays. I mention Fridays because there used to be a tradition that you ate fish only on that day.
In Canada, this is a $4 billion industry that generates a great deal of revenue in each community. I would like to speak about the Quebec fisheries and everything happening east of Quebec City. But I will speak primarily about the region I am most familiar with, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Let us try to figure out the significance of “the fisheries”. The population of the Magdalen Islands is 14,000. In my opinion, we have to respect these people. Of these 14,000 people, 6 out of 10 depend on the fishing industry. It is that clear cut.
In the Gaspé, a little more than 3 people in 10 have fishery related employment. In Quebec, the landed value of the fishery is $150 million. This may not seem like much compared to other figures, but when you consider the overall figures, you realize that thousands of people depend on them.
I am talking just about the landed value of the fish. For regions like ours, it is extremely important. That is why we must look at the fishery from this angle.
In my opinion, it would be proper and respectful toward this population, the fishers, the industries, the people who work in the plants in question and the communities to take the necessary time to look at how changes are made. It is true that there are a number of changes in the bill.
One of the changes that absolutely needs to be made involves the discretionary power of the minister. I have nothing against the person in that position. That is not what I am saying.
Nonetheless, giving the minister full discretionary power over managing the fisheries does not allow us, in my opinion, to go further. Unfortunately, over the past year some questionable decisions, to say the least, have been made. We have spoken out against these decisions.
They say there is a crisis in the shrimp fishery. There are too many shrimp on the market: we are being “invaded” and “attacked” by farmed shrimp. However, the current minister announced an increase in the fished shrimp quota in the gulf areas. But who is benefiting? The fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador are benefiting.
I have nothing against Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no problem with this. However, as far as management is concerned, I do not get the impression that increasing quotas to benefit a certain group is responsible resource management when shrimp ... when the shrimp industry is in crisis. It is not the shrimp that are in crisis. On the contrary, Nordic shrimp are delicious.
Magdalen Island lobster fishers also experienced this adversarial situation with Prince Edward Island lobster fishers.
There again, an arbitrary decision was made by the ministers, supposedly based on a report from a mediator. This mediator was rejected by one of the parties, the Magdalen Islands.
So much for efficiency and effectiveness. That is what the people of the Magdalen Islands said. Anyone who thinks I am wrong about what the people of the Magdalen Islands said should take the time to go and see the islanders.
I repeat: the fishers from the Magdalen Islands said that consultations were held and a mediator was appointed without their consent. I believe what the fishers from the Magdalen Islands say. Anyone who claims otherwise is calling the fishers liars. That is a fact.
Parliamentarians must act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois is committed to doing so, and I am as well. We did so recently when the revocation of legislation concerning the Great Lakes fisheries was being reviewed. In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois acted responsibly on this issue.
Strangely, during the process, it was noticed that the Conservatives, who had introduced the section in question, had voted against that section by mistake. Mistakes happen, certainly. If it had not been for the Bloc Québécois, the whole thing might have fallen through.
The people of the Great Lakes might have found themselves in a legal vacuum. That is why I am calling on all members to work together. At the same time, I am well aware that we will have a great deal of work to do. We will do it responsibly and thoroughly. When the committee receives Bill C-45, if the House so desires, the committee will have to proceed thoroughly and responsibly, taking the time not only to consult, but also to make any amendments it considers appropriate.
It is not just a matter of time, it is also a matter of respect for the industry, fishers, communities and everyone directly or indirectly involved in the fisheries. A number of amendments will be made to this bill, which I feel is a work in progress. I believe that some parts will have to be removed and that we will have to agree on some others. I cannot agree with one of the objectives of Bill C-45, which provides that the department can use the resource to fund its research work. What have we come to? I understand that the resource is public, but it should benefit the people who fish it and live off it. A bill should not make it possible to do indirectly something that we would not want to see done directly: using this money to fund research. If, after 138 years, this is the sort of change that is being proposed, we will have to go back to the drawing board. We will defend this principle tooth and nail. There are others we could elaborate on.
I just want to summarize what I was saying, but I know that I will have an opportunity to come back to this over the course of the debate and possibly in committee if the House chooses that route.
Bill C-45 enhances the co-management of the fish populations by giving fishers more power and more responsibility. It also creates a new tribunal that will have the authority to punish poachers by imposing penalties ranging from fines to revoking fishing permits.
I want to remind hon. members that under the current system, even the most insignificant offences are referred to a criminal court, which can involve a lengthy and costly process.
In addition to having at its disposal an entire arsenal of penalties, this tribunal will consist of individuals who have a good understanding of the fishing industry, and vigilance will be the order of the day.
The bill finally recognizes that some legislation in Quebec and the provinces is equal or superior, and it thereby cuts down on duplication. On that matter, the Bloc Québécois, as a sovereignist party, has another objective. As an aside, if there ever were a sector of the economy in Quebec that could attest to the fact that if we were sovereign we would be better off, it would certainly be the fishery sector.
I know that some people do not necessarily agree with me, but that is the broad consensus in Quebec. We will eventually see this, during a referendum. The fisheries file perfectly illustrates why Quebec needs sovereignty. And, as they say, the sceptics will be confounded.
However, as for the negative points of the bill, obviously, the issue of consultation has been mentioned. In a way, the proposed amendment is relatively interesting. I know that the committee will also work very hard, and respectfully, but above all, very thoroughly. That is how it is done.
I know that the current minister was on the committee. Now he is the minister, wearing a new hat, one might say. I know he worked actively within the committee, just as I did. We face several challenges. Of course, the various crises bear witness to that.
I must also mention that, recently, for example, the sale of licences from one province to the next created the following risk: a crab boat was sold to a P.E.I. business, without a history of a crab quota, meaning that 25 jobs per boat left our region, not including the jobs linked to the plant. This is dangerous. This is what it means for jobs on the boats and in the plants. This is dangerous.
Does the bill address the situation? I do not think so. Should it address the situation? In my opinion, yes, absolutely. Of course, there was a reaction. We found a way to say that perhaps the licence could be attributed to P.E.I. or elsewhere, but not the attached quota. That may be a way to slow things down, but it will not completely prevent such situations.
I will have the opportunity to come back to this over the course of the next few hours or, if necessary, in the weeks and months to come, with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of these people who depend on this industry and who—
Fisheries Act, 2007Government Orders
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc, who obviously has an interest in the bill. It is really worth pointing out that this bill has not been redone or reconstructed in 139 years. Contrary to the amendment by my good friend and colleague from Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor, I have to ask my colleague from the Bloc, since he did state that he agrees with the bill in principle, if he would not agree with me that if we extend this for another six months, as the amendment calls for, time will go by and they will want another delay.
Then, the next thing we know, we will have been waiting 149 years. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc would support me in asking my colleague from Gander to withdraw his amendment and get on with this. I also must say that our minister has drafted a great bill. I think even my minister would agree with me that no bill is ever perfect, but I think this is a good bill. I am sure that the minister is open on this from time to time.
However, delaying it is not the way to go. Let us get started with something that appears to me to be a very good bill. Fisheries is big in my riding, as it obviously is to that gentleman over there, and I can appreciate that. I would like to hear his comments.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank my Conservative colleague for his question. I would say that we should not exaggerate. Although I do not know the member in question, I think he has exaggerated somewhat.
The amendment submitted will be scrutinized and analyzed on its merits. However, the letter that I presented at the outset, signed by the citizens of my riding who represent a number of fishers in my riding, should be retained in principle. They feel that the bill could be improved and that is why they say yes. However, they are quite shocked because they feel they were not consulted. Therefore, it is important to take the time to analyze the situation.
I am in favour of the proposal or the proposed amendment . However, I will take the time to analyze it because I believe we must act rigorously and responsibly in this matter.