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.

Bill C-55—Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Families.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did a great job on Bill C-55. That is not the problem. The problems is that the government is abusing the process by repeatedly imposing gag orders in the House. That is undemocratic.

Could the minister please explain to the House why we need time allocation? This is a good bill. It has been amended. It has gone through committee. It should not need to be forced through. We should be able to have the kind of work in this place which ensures that full debate can take place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and value very much the contribution of my colleague. She knows really well, because of her vast experience, that the House has two responsibilities.

The first one is to listen to the diversity of perspectives and views in this chamber as well as in the other one. The House also has a responsibility to move forward with important changes that will make a real change in the lives of Canadians, especially when it comes to issues that matter very much to them, such as protecting the oceans of our great country. We have a country that has the immense privilege of having three oceans. We also have the immense responsibility of protecting all of these oceans, and that is exactly the purpose of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is dismaying that we get to stand up again on this abuse of process. I believe our hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought it up. When campaigning in the 2015 election, the member for Papineau said that under his governance, his government would be the most open and transparent government ever. He also said that he would give backbenchers more power. Well, we have seen how that goes, and our hon. colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame has seen full well how that goes.

He also said, among many other things, that he would let debate reign. I would like to remind everyone in the House that this House does not belong to the Prime Minister. It does not belong to you, Mr. Speaker. It does not belong to me. It belongs to the electors. We are the voice of the electors. We are elected to be the voice of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On a piece of legislation that will be so critical to Canadians, why does the government feel the necessity to abuse its power and abuse parliamentary privilege and process to shut down debate and ram this bill through?

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

Mr. Speaker, the voices of members of the House are extremely important. The voices of Canadians in 2015 were equally important. Canadians let us know they wanted a greater share of our oceans to be protected. Less than 1% of our oceans were protected before 2015. We said in the campaign that 5% of our oceans would be protected by 2017. We achieved 7.75% in 2017. We said we would move to 10% by 2020.

This is an important bill that speaks to the vision and voice of Canadians when it comes to protecting the value of our oceans. I am proud that both the voice of the people in this House as well as the voice of Canadians in 2015 have been listened to respectfully and attentively.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know in this place that the use of time allocation has become a pretty regular practice of the government.

Unfortunately, the other regular practice underneath that is when the government does use time allocation, it only calls for one more day of debate. That is quite unfair to MPs who may want to speak to legislation, who up to today would have thought they might have the opportunity to do so at some future occasion.

I wonder if the minister could explain why when time allocation is used, which is not something I condone, the government does not provide for more days of debate. The Liberals could pick three days, five days, or whatever number they want. Why do they always make it one day, shutting down MPs who might like to plan for future opportunities to speak to bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have had the privilege of listening to approximately 11 hours of debate in this House, seven and a half at third reading.

The parliamentary committee on fisheries and oceans did a great job. It met with 34 different witnesses. It was amazing work and an experience that will last not only a matter of days but a matter of years, because this bill is going to change Canada for the future.

In the next few years, for instance, we will increase the share of the ocean being protected from about 7.75% in 2017 to 10% in 2020. The importance of those actions will keep increasing as we move forward in working better both for the environment and the economy.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Families and Children for answering this question that relates to fisheries and oceans, natural resources, and the ministry of the environment. I find it odd that the Minister of Natural Resources will not answer questions on this. I find it odd that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuses to stand and answer questions on this and that the Minister of Environment is refusing to answer these questions, leaving it instead to the Minister of Families and Children to answer questions about why the government is shutting down debate on a bill about oceans and offshore petroleum resources.

I also find it insulting that the government knows that today, on a Wednesday, with a shortened schedule, by closing down the debate and limiting it to one day, it actually means that 40 minutes of debate will occur after their obstructionist voting takes place.

Why will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not stand in this place and answer the question? Why is the government shutting down debate on a Wednesday, when we only get 40 more minutes to talk about this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think most members in this House will appreciate, value, and congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Natural Resources for their collaborative work in moving our country forward when it comes to supporting the environment and supporting the economy. This is a language and a vision that I think most Canadians also share. We look forward to more debate, more advances, and more action in the future. This bill, for instance, would set out a panel to inform the future work of this House as well as the work of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to meeting our international commitments regarding the protection of our very valuable oceans.

We look forward to continuing this important discussion with all members in this House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

My question does not relate to the meaning of the bill, so I do not want to hear a response on the substance of the bill. My question has to do with the time allocation motion.

Without saying who is and is not here in the House, I can see that the minister is surrounded by some MPs who were here during the previous Parliament, when the Conservatives made good use of time allocation motions, which they moved nearly every day. These members always rose to speak out against these Conservative time allocation motions.

Today, the tables have turned. These same members are still here, but they remain silent. They are no longer critical of time allocation motions.

What changed between those days before 2015, when they were criticizing time allocation motions every day, and today, when then have nothing to say so they sit and listen?

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

I thank my colleague for his comment, Mr. Speaker. It is true, he has been in the House a little longer than I have, so I am sure he knows how complicated things were prior to 2015.

I have not been in the member's shoes. Maybe I have not had the same traumatic experiences, but I know that in 2017 and 2018, our Liberal caucus is doing tremendous work. Our MPs take their work very seriously and they meet with ministers regularly.

I also know that opposition members are doing an excellent job, too. I want to commend the NDP in particular, whose members have risen six times, while Conservative MPs have spoken 21 times, out of a total 34 speeches in the House.

I believe that everyone has contributed. As the member also knows, a government must be willing to listen. A government also needs to take action on issues like protecting assets as important as Canada's three oceans. As I said, we are fortunate to have three oceans, but we also have a duty to protect them.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals could be this arrogant. Yesterday the minister was at committee talking about how he was going to be open and transparent and how he was going to listen to Canadians. The Liberals are saying that they are doing that here today, yet here they are calling for time allocation, shutting down debate in this House because they are afraid to hear the honest debate about the unprecedented powers that will be given to the fisheries minister through this bill. He and only he would be able decide what areas would be shut down for transport, oil and gas exploration, fishing, and any type of activity in the oceans.

Why do the Minister of Fisheries, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Transport not have the jam to stand up and answer this question?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member and commend him for his interest and his contribution to the debate. As he well knows, Bill C-55 would correct a major flaw in the current system. The current system has two possibilities, zero protection or full protection, and nothing in between. The in-between matters where we have a presumption that some marine areas need to be preserved and protected. What we would put in place with Bill C-55 would be a regime within which interim protections could be provided. That means that the minister would have five years to consult extensively with Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, and draw upon science in the most extensive, respectful, and efficient manner, and within those five years, there would be interim protections. After five years, a decision would be made as to whether we wanted to permanently protect the area or not protect it at all.

It is a good way forward. There will be more to come with the contributions of the members in this House.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly shocked to hear the minister proudly state in no uncertain terms that the Liberals allocated enough time to debate this bill even though, as he said, only some thirty opposition MPs have spoken.

There are 338 members of the House of Commons. How is that democratic? How is that freedom of speech for all? How is that transparent? We are debating a bill that, as the minister himself said, is vital to the protection of the environment and our oceans. There really is a disconnect between what he is saying and what he claims to be doing. Why are they limiting the time we can spend debating it? I think that, in less than two and a half years, they have invoked closure 35 times. They are also adding only one more day of debate on this bill. I have not yet had my say.

Why are we not afforded the privilege of having an open debate on a bill that the minister himself deems so important?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say three things.

Number one, my colleague, like some of my other colleagues in the House, probably experienced some traumatic things in the pre-2015 era. My colleagues are well aware that we do not even come close to the former government's track record for shutting down debate.

Number two, as the member knows, this government needs to listen to Canadians and to the people Canadians elected to represent them. As I said, the opinions we have heard over the past few weeks have mainly been those of the official opposition and the NDP. We appreciate their views. We know MPs worked hard to share them. We also know they worked hard on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans while it was hearing from its 34 witnesses.

Number three, Canadians understand that a government needs to take action and that there comes a point where, if a consensus cannot be reached and the House cannot unanimously agree, the government needs to push forward, especially on significant issues such as these.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for being here today to discuss this bill and this vote.

I was wondering if the minister could discuss the amount of work that was accomplished by the fisheries and oceans committee. I was discussing this with the member for Avalon, and he told me that the committee put months and months of work into hearing from over 50 witnesses. That is an incredible amount of work. It was over many months.

Every member of the House has the opportunity to go to every committee meeting to offer comments and to listen to experts and people who are involved. I was hoping the minister could comment on the type of debate we might have heard at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.