Bill C-55 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act

This enactment amends the Oceans Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish a national network of marine protected areas;
(b) empower the Minister to designate marine protected areas by order and prohibit certain activities in those areas;
(c) provide that, within five years after the day on which the order of the Minister designating a marine protected area comes into force, the Minister is to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to make regulations to replace that order or is to repeal it;
(d) provide that the Governor in Council and Minister cannot use the lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed by any activity as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under subsection 35(3) or 35.‍1(2);
(e) update and strengthen the powers of enforcement officers;
(f) update the Act’s offence provisions, in particular to increase the amount of fines and to provide that ships may be subject to the offence provisions; and
(g) create new offences for a person or ship that engages in prohibited activities within a marine protected area designated by an order or that contravenes certain orders.
This enactment also makes amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the Governor in Council’s authority to prohibit an interest owner from commencing or continuing a work or activity in a marine protected area that is designated under the Oceans Act;
(b) empower the competent Minister under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to cancel an interest that is located in a marine protected area that is designated under the Oceans Act or in an area of the sea that may be so designated; and
(c) provide for compensation to the interest owner for the cancellation or surrender of such an interest.

Oceans Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his nice words and comments.

He is absolutely right. The example he is raising from committee is yet another example of the government, particularly a few people in the Prime Minister's Office, making decisions that are having terrible consequences on Atlantic Canada and western Canada, and affecting jobs at the kitchen table. If we dare suggest that those decisions are poor ones in Canada's national interest, they say that we do not understand Canada or that we do not have the right values. Our deputy leader had the gall to ask a few questions of the finance minister, and he said that people who did not agree with him were going to be dragged along and called her a neanderthal. This is the approach, and I have seen it countless times.

The Canada summer jobs values test is an example. They do not want faith organizations from other groups to participate in this program and so they are going to design a way to exclude them. It is terrible, and I think Canadians are starting to catch on, and the Liberals are seeing that Canadians are trying to catch on.

I am hoping that, by raising this with respect to the Oceans Act, we start tackling it every time the Liberals do this virtue signalling, value judgment division, dividing Canadians, and dropping job opportunities for Atlantic Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government has brought in legislation, and we have a very progressive approach in wanting to have protected areas, which is a reflection of what Canadians really and truly want to see happen. We are seeing more empowerment of the minister to be able to take action. These are all good things. However, on the one hand, we have the New Democrats, of course, constantly saying that we can always do more. To a certain degree, we can do more. There is always room to improve, and we will work toward that. Then we have the Conservatives on the other hand saying that we have gone too far. Therefore, we are somewhere in between. I wonder if the member across the way would not agree.

As a government, we have to know we are doing right when we have the Conservatives saying that we are going too far and the NDP saying that we have not gone far enough.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love how the Liberals will often try and play the Goldilocks approach to government in that they are right in the middle where the porridge is perfect. They are actually not even on the kitchen table.

The member just said that they are so progressive and that is what Canadians want. Well, Canadians would like to hear from Daniel Jean. Where is that? They are muzzling Daniel Jean. Do Canadians want to pay Omar Khadr $10.5 million? Do Canadians want to remove words like “Mr.”, “Mrs.”, or “mom” and “dad” and start referring to people as “peoplekind”? Do Canadians want summer jobs for university students to have to go through a screen to screen out churches and faith organizations? No, Canadians actually do not want any of the ideological drivel from the government. That is why in 2019 they are going to replace them with the Conservatives.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to again speak to Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

I had the opportunity to speak to the legislation back in September at second reading. I expressed some serious concerns with the legislation and how it might affect fishers and coastal communities. It was my hope that the government would make some significant amendments to the legislation in response.

It was not just me expressing concern. A huge number of Canadians who rely on the ocean for their livelihoods have voiced their concerns loud and clear, but these concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of the government.

As I stated back in September, the provisions in Bill C-55 will certainly make delivering on the government's campaign promise of increasing the amount of Canada's marine protected areas much easier, but there are costs associated with moving at this unreasonable pace. We are again seeing the government move forward with a timeline that is so strictly tied to a campaign promise rather than having promises that are based on reasonable timelines. This makes for good politics, but it does not make for good policy.

For example, once an area has an interim designation, it will be very difficult to reverse. Once the minister decides to deem an area as an interim MPA, there will be restrictions, regulations, and prohibitions put in place that will affect the use of the area for a full five years. What if, for example, at the end of the five years it is determined that the area should not be deemed to be an MPA? It would appear to me that this is a classic example of the old adage of “putting the cart before the horse”. It would be a much more effective process to examine all evidence in a fulsome process to determine MPAs rather than create a piecemeal approach wherein areas are designated on an interim basis and then reviewed. Again, this is all the result of arbitrary, self-imposed deadlines that are unreasonable and will result in a rushed and, quite frankly, messy process.

At the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the committee heard time and time again that the government was moving much too quickly and needed to take a step back to ensure the process for creating an MPA was actually based on scientific evidence and proper consultation rather than simply the will of the minister. My colleague, the member for Durham, eloquently explained that lack of science. While the government constantly pretends to base everything on science, quite obviously it does not.

A number of the amendments that the Conservative members of the committee put forward were rejected by the Liberals. These amendments would have made Bill C-55 much more effective and would have ensured that all those who would be affected by an MPA would be properly consulted before it was put in place by the minister.

I would like to take some time to present to the House some of the amendments that were rejected by the Liberal members of the committee, many of whom represent coastal communities by the way. In fact, six of the Liberal MPs on our committee represent Maritime ridings. Their constituents have told our committee constantly that they are not very happy with the lack of consultation and science.

Under Bill C-55, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, without any consultation with stakeholders, fishers, or community members, may implement an interim protected area. The committee heard time and again that an interim designation without any consultation was simply not acceptable.

Therefore, the Conservatives introduced an amendment to require the minister to give a 60-day consultation period before using his or her powers under this act. Given that the government's favourite word on almost any other topic is “consultation”, we naively assumed that this amendment would pass. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee did not agree that it was a good idea for their constituents to have a voice and they ultimately rejected this amendment.

I represent a landlocked riding in Ontario, so the impact of Bill C-55 on my constituency is fairly minimal. However, that does not take away the fact, as I see it, as well as many of the constituents of the Liberal members at the fisheries committee see it, that this would take away their livelihood without any consultation. Nobody should have to put up with that. If this thing were affecting my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, they would be screaming bloody murder.

However, it truly boggles my mind that Liberal members at the fisheries and oceans committee would not fight against this legislation. We are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of our constituents, not the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I feel truly sorry for the residents of South Shore—St. Margarets, Miramichi—Grand Lake, Avalon, and all other ridings of Liberal members on the fisheries and oceans committee. In 2015, they thought they were electing their voice in Ottawa. Instead it appears they have elected Ottawa's voice in their community.

Furthermore, the Conservative members of the committee also introduced two amendments that would have required some form of reporting to Parliament by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to update the House on the status of the MPA process and interim designations made under this act. Specifically, the amendment would have called for the minister to report to the House once per fiscal year regarding the administration and enforcement of this act for that specific year. The report would include any MPAs that were designated during that period, the extent to which, in the opinion of the minister, the conservation reasons stated for each designated MPA had been respected, and, finally, any further measures that the minister thought were required for any designated MPAs.

One would think that a party that has spent years in opposition, claiming that the former government had no respect for Parliament, would welcome this amendment with open arms. We were not asking the minister to come out every year and spill state secrets. It was simply to be a quick update on where things were at and where we were going. Unfortunately, once again, these amendments were rejected.

Before I wrap up my comments, I wanted to put on the record some comments that were made by Dr. Larry McKinney, executive director at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at the University of Corpus Christi in Texas. Dr. McKinney is an expert on MPAs and has established a number of them throughout the United States. He told the committee that the MPA process worked best when the identification and establishment of MPAs were driven by the communities that would be impacted by their designation. He stated that the most successful MPAs he had overseen were the ones that were actually identified by local recreational fishers who saw a need for protection and worked with the government to protect these areas.

I always say that anglers and hunters are the true stewards of the environment and true conservationists.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound will have eleven and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next gets back to debate on the question. He will also have a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Bill C-55—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House. Today I heard the Prime Minister say countless times in question period that he defends freedom of expression and he would like everyone to be able to express themselves. However, at the first opportunity, the leader of the government announced that there would be a motion to limit debate and prevent members from speaking to Bill C-55, which is very important.

It is unacceptable to say one thing in front of the cameras and do the complete opposite when the journalists have left and when it is just us here in the House of Commons. The government should be ashamed of itself for using this tool to muzzle people who want to defend Canada's fisheries workers.

Why has the government once again chosen to prevent members of the House from publicly and freely expressing themselves on such an important issue?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House, mainly to thank and commend all hon. members of the House for the remarkable work they did over the past few weeks and months. We had the privilege of holding wide-ranging debates; some even rose several times for a total of 10 and a half hours of debate, including seven and a half at third reading stage alone—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have just seen once again that the government has invoked closure on a piece of legislation that will impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast, yet we do not have the House leader here who may have the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry, but there are two things. It is not a point of order, and the member is not to refer to someone's presence or absence.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is supposed to be related to the bill. We do not see the natural resources minister, the environment minister, or the fisheries and oceans minister answering this question. I am not talking about whether they are here or not. Why do they not stand up and answer the questions related to the bill?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Once again, I want to remind hon. members that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of any members of the House.

On the other point, it is up to the individual to come up with an answer. In about 30 seconds, I am not sure anyone has the time to come around to it. I will leave it to the hon. minister to come to it. I have heard many discussions in the House where I wonder where someone is going, and then the member wraps it around and brings it to the relevant question.

The hon. minister has the floor.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding us of the question that was asked and giving me the opportunity to complete my answer, which is very simple. I commend all members of the House, particularly the Conservative members who gave 21 of the 34 speeches on the issue. Two-thirds of the speeches were given by Conservative members. Their important opinions were heard.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans did a remarkable job. It met nine times and heard from 34 witnesses. Those opinions are very important. Governments must listen to a variety of opinions from a wide range of people out of respect and in order to develop the best public policies possible. This bill has been improved thanks to the invaluable and much appreciated work of everyone in the House.