Bill C-68 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

This enactment amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;
(b) add a purpose clause and considerations for decision-making under that Act;
(c) empower the Minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes;
(d) provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, including in ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to the modernization of the regulatory framework such as authorization of projects, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project and establishment of a public registry;
(e) empower the Governor in Council to make new regulations, including regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks and importation of fish;
(f) empower the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity;
(g) empower the Minister to make fisheries management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing for a period of 45 days to address a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish;
(h) prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care; and
(i) update and strengthen enforcement powers, as well as establish an alternative measures agreements regime; and
(j) provide for the implementation of various measures relating to the maintenance or rebuilding of fish stocks.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Fisheries Act

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, before addressing this question, I would like to say that there is important work already happening under the government to restore fish stocks. I know of projects in my own riding to rebuild salmon populations in the West River in Sheet Harbour and the St. Mary's River in Sherbrooke.

Of course it is extraordinarily important that Canadians have faith that when we talk about rebuilding fish stocks, it is not simply an opportunity to have niceties. We have to have a process in place that they are going to have faith in. We have to have a rigorous and very transparent consultation when we are developing regulations to demonstrate that, on a timeline, we are going to be able to provide the work that we need to do to ensure that the fish are going to be there, so that the rural communities that I want to defend today have an opportunity to fish, not just today but for generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually fairly encouraged that we have legislation before us that is really going to have an impact on fish habitat going forward.

I know the Atlantic caucus and the B.C. caucus are fairly excited about the fact that we do have legislation, legislation that we have been waiting for. I wonder if my colleague could share his thoughts on the importance of bringing forward this legislation today. We know there has been a great deal of discussion amongst caucus members who want to see action on this front. We have a minister responsible who has really led the charge in ensuring that we are in fact protecting fish habitat, looking at ways we can expand protection and the quality and quantity of fish going forward.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will take that a step further and say that the importance of the legislation is not just something that the caucuses care deeply about, but in fact something the people we represent care deeply about.

The movement towards this legislation has been an incredible exercise in democracy. What I have seen in our Atlantic caucus is people speaking passionately about conversations they have actually had with constituents, who said, on December 5, 2012, that they were disheartened to see that all the protections afforded for Canadian rivers, lakes, and waterways had been reduced to a limited number. I believe the number was 159 that were on the schedule to be protected.

When I see the measures restoring lost protections that were erased in a 2012 omnibus budget bill, I know our Atlantic caucus colleagues are thrilled because they have been listened to, but more importantly because we are able to stand here, take our place, and bring the voices of our constituents to the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, does my colleague think that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should not have too much discretionary power and should instead make decisions based on facts and science?

In the previous Parliament, we had problems when the government muzzled scientists. Now, this government is saying that it is important to make science-based decisions, but there is nothing in the wording of the bill to say that the decisions must be based on science. Rather, the bill says that the minister may make decisions based on his own opinion. I think this should be fixed.

What does my colleague think?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is extraordinarily important. The measures that the minister takes should be based on facts, science, and evidence in all cases.

I am of the view that discretion in certain aspects of decision-making can be a positive thing, so long as the public has faith that the decisions being made when that discretion is exercised are done so in a very public and transparent way. It cannot be done to cater to some sort of private interest. It has to be done in the public interest.

Of course when science is available, we should use it for the decision-making process, but when there is a unique, particularly social or economic concern, discretion is not always a bad thing.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, which would restore lost protections and modernize safeguards to protect fish and fish habitat. The proposed amendments are the result of extensive consultations over the past two years. Canadians have spoken, this government has listened, and now we are acting.

I would like to review the elements of the proposed act that address monitoring and enforcement, two areas that were seriously affected after the previous changes in 2012 and 2013. I will begin with the area of monitoring.

Throughout consultations for the proposed amendments, indigenous groups and stakeholders expressed interest in better monitoring on several levels. For example, they want to see increased reporting and transparency regarding the habitat protection provisions of the act that are being reintroduced. I am pleased to say that the government has responded to this call for action.

In line with our commitment to transparency, the act would allow the development of an online registry. This would provide information on permit and authorization decisions, as well as codes of practice and standards. Significantly, the registry would also improve the department's ability to monitor compliance with the act. Indigenous peoples and stakeholders also want to see clear standards for how proponents monitor the impacts of a project on fish and fish habitat. The proposed amendments would address these concerns by making monitoring information more accessible via the public registry.

Let me turn now to the question of improved enforcement. As we know, fishery officers are responsible for ensuring compliance with all aspects of the Fisheries Act, including provisions to protect fish and their habitats. The Fisheries Act, in 2012, reduced habitat protections, and it is no surprise that habitat-related enforcement dropped by 80% between 2004 and 2016. The proposed Fisheries Act before the House today would go beyond restoring lost protections. It would also strengthen and modernize the enforcement powers of fishery officers. I would like to highlight the specific changes.

Throughout consultations and public engagement sessions for this bill, Canadians have been very clear that they want more fishery officers on patrol and more offenders caught and held accountable. I am pleased to say that amendments are proposed to clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement of the act. For example, fishery officers would be granted three new powers.

First, they could require that any vessel or vehicle be stopped and moved to a place that is suitable for inspection. This would enable an officer to order a vessel back to port or order a vehicle to a safe inspection site. Second, fishery officers could exercise their powers in relation to any Canadian fishing vessels in the waters and territories of other countries, provided the countries agree. Third, fishery officers would not be liable for contraventions of the act if done in the performance of their duties, and this exemption from liability would also apply to any person accompanying them.

Other amendments under the new act would modernize the powers of courts with four new elements. First, certificates signed by an analyst could be used in court as evidence that the substance, product, or fish has been analyzed or tested by an analyst; as evidence of the results of those tests; and as evidence of the accuracy of instruments used by fishery officers. Second, courts could authorize the forfeiture of illegal fishing gear found in Canadian fisheries waters. Third, courts could authorize further extension of seizures beyond the initial 90-day period, and fourth, courts could authorize forfeiture of fish or other things that would be illegal to possess, even if no charges were laid.

Another enforcement-related amendment would provide authority for the minister to suspend or cancel a licence where a licence holder is in default of payment of a fine related to a fisheries violation.

Not all offenders should end up in the courts, which can be costly for all parties and time-consuming. Amendments would enable the use of alternative measures agreements. These agreements focus on problem solving and addressing the root cause of the contravention. They are a cost-effective alternative to the criminal justice system and have been shown to reduce relapse. The proposed amendments would extend the use of alternative measures for some offences related to fish and fish habitat when the offender has recognized his or her responsibility.

To sum up, the proposed Fisheries Act would introduce measures to strengthen monitoring and to modernize safeguards for fish and fish habitats. The department has also identified the need for more strategic planning of monitoring activities. With respect to enforcement, the amendments would strengthen and modernize the enforcement powers of fishery officers. It would give the courts new powers, while expanding the use of alternative measures.

I am proud to get behind this bill. These measures would restore lost protections and modernize our approach to safeguarding our fisheries. At the same time, they would go a long way to restoring public faith in the department's conservation and restoration efforts.

I call on all hon. members to support the proposed amendments and give it speedy passage through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the Cohen Commission's third recommendation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is violating its mandate and should stop promoting salmon farming as an industry, since viruses are contaminating the fish, which then contaminate wild salmon, which then contaminate the entire food chain and destroy marine biodiversity.

Does my colleague agree that promoting this industry should not be part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's mandate, since the industry contaminates our fish stocks?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we need to understand is that we have consulted Canadians on all aspects of change. There are 2,063 Canadians who registered online, and almost 5,500 who completed an e-questionnaire. Therefore, I am very confident that the changes with respect to the concern the member brought up have been taken into consideration.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this, the government is attempting to repair the damaged legislation that was brought forward by the previous government. There is a real strong sense of our environmental responsibilities, in particular as it relates to our fisheries and oceans in this matter.

Could the member expand on where we were with the previous government and what it did in 2012 compared to where we are now, and exactly what that will do to further strengthen our commitment to the environment?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to expand on this.

Our government promised to not just return to the previous version of the Fisheries Act but to make the law even better than before. Our government is delivering on its important promise made to Canadians.

We are introducing the amendment to the Fisheries Act, which when passed, will restore and protect our fish and fish habitat. This was lost under the previous Conservative government. The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act will contribute to the advancing of reconciliation with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people, and a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, which is a priority for our government. These amendments would make it requirement to consider and protect the indigenous traditional knowledge when making certain decisions under the Fisheries Act.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

First, I would like to highlight a comment made by my colleague from the Lower Mainland. He said that they wanted to make the act even better than it was before. I agree with him. It was pretty good. Back in 2012, the changes we made under our previous government were substantive.

Being the parliamentary outdoor caucus co-chair, we deal a lot with fishing, specifically recreational fishing. If people were lucky enough to get out last weekend to do some ice fishing, good for them. I did not have time. However, a lot of the time we have as families together, we to do exactly that.

However, it always seems a little disingenuous of the Liberals across the way when they cannot just say that they are doing something good for fisheries or they are doing something positive in Bill C-68 without giving us a shot. I would like to argue about that and defend our record.

We started a very substantive program, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. We provided millions of dollars to basically local organizations to help people who were interested in seeing their own rivers and tributaries have a sustainable fishery for recreational fishers.

An article from 2015, which references the OFAH, a non-partisan group, states:

...the largest the largest non-profit charitable fish and wildlife conservation organization in Ontario, applauds the federal government’s decision to substantially increase the funding to the highly successful Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program by providing an additional $15 million over two years.

When it mentions the federal government, it is referring to the Conservative government. This is just one announcement of many. The article goes on to say, “Ours was one of 96 projects from across Canada funded in the first year of the program.” We are talking about millions of dollars.

Some people think that just the odd person goes out and fishes on a weekend, but recreational fishing generates over $8 billion in annual economic activity. Frankly, we like the heritage part of it. Personally, I like going out to fish. However, the economic activity is something to support, and that is what we did in the previous government.

For the Liberals to say that Bill C-68 is a great saviour of recreational fishing in Canada is a stretch. A lot was done before. Can a lot be done? Absolutely. We are all concerned about the numbers of fish we see in certain tributaries off the west coast and east coast, and we want to do all we can. The Conservatives and Liberals can agree upon that. To say that the previous government did nothing is not true.

I want to speak a little about Bill C-68 and what it seeks to do. This is where the previous government had it right.

The Liberals always seem to want to increase bureaucracy. They are talking about funding different groups to study what is normally done by volunteers right now. A group in Valemount does a great job of establishing salmon and fish habitat in the rivers and doing what it can to build fish ladders, etc. A lot of it is done by volunteers. It is done by local people who are interested in fishing or who just want to see a healthy fish habitat in their local community of Valemount.

However, the Liberal government is now seeking to dump a bunch of money into funding different target and study groups, spending money on what is already being done by volunteers today. Again, I would question its logic of funding things that work quite well on their own right now, being driven by volunteers. Volunteers are a good thing. They are there because they are interested and want to make our rivers and streams a better place for fish. Again, why are the Liberals throwing more money at a situation, which does not always make it better?

We see a number of challenges with returning stocks, depending on the rivers. We see efforts needing to be made. With Bill C-68, the Liberal government is maybe trying to do something that is better, but building a bigger bureaucracy will not help one fish in one river, especially in my home province of British Columbia.

We support a strong conservation effort generally. I know the member who will speak after me is an avid fisherman. Most of our speakers grab a rod and reel, so we really do care about preserving the numbers, especially the returning fish. We absolutely support any efforts that would substantively increase the numbers returning and substantially help recreational fishers access particular lands.

One item of concern, which is not really related to Bill C-68 but does relate to recreational fishing in Canada, is marine protection areas that the current government is seeking to challenge for recreational fishers in the province of B.C.

The Liberals say that they are for fisheries, et cetera, but fisheries are meant to be used by the people. Any kind of restriction of that fishery is a concern for Conservative members on this side of the House. We are definitely concerned for the long-term future of recreational fishing, the history that it brings, and all the great experience families have. We fished a couple of years ago with my kids and they all caught a fish. It was a great experience. It was one of those memorable moments of our summer of 2016.

I wish the government would spend money where money is well-received, which is literally by the fish in streams. Back in the mid-1990s, I had the pleasure to work as a carpenter on a fish ladder in a fish creek area to the north of where I live. I saw the effort that went into that by people who cared about the stream and having a sustainable fishery. A lot of that effort was done by people who were volunteering and doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, not just for a paycheque.

The government should look at what works in the current system with conservation groups in British Columbia, my home province, in Atlantic Canada, and across the Prairies. In whatever province, there are people who like to fish. I would look at what is already working. The government should do more of that as opposed to trying to change the whole regime. I do not think that is a great way to spend money and it is not a great way to have a sustained fishery in our country.

The goal for everybody in here is to try to achieve a sustainable fishery so our kids, our grandkids, and our great-grandkids can fish well into the future. I know that is the goal of our members and I know it is the goal of some across the way. Again, we want to ensure that when the government spends taxpayer dollars, it spends them wisely, not just throwing dollars at a problem expecting them to stick, and not fix it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment with respect to fishing with his family and children. My son and our next door neighbour pick up their fishing rods, walk down the street to the lake, and fish in the summertime as well. This legislation is exactly about that. It is about protecting the ability to do that into future. Sometimes we need regulation around different activities so we can ensure that future generations, our children, grandchildren, and their children, can continue this activity that so many of us have come to love.

Could the member comment on whether some legislation and regulations are necessary to ensure we have the ability to continue to do this into the future?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member's kids fish. That is a great example of why we want to keep fishing a viable thing in Canada and ensure we can have it for our future generations.

There is a key part to this conversation on Bill C-68 and that this great legislation will be a fix-all of all the problems. I have been reading multiple articles, but one article said that it was not a matter of legislation; it was a matter of implementation. If we need to fix our implementation to ensure that better results will ensue, we need to look a bit closer at what that would look like, rather than throw money at a completely different group, do something completely different, expecting to have a great result. Implementation is the issue here and we need to get to the bottom of how to implement a good process in Canada.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution to this debate, and also his work as the B.C. caucus chair.

The member raised a very good point that regulations are important but measures have to be there that send a signal to the wider audience, particularly in British Columbia, that they are important and that the government is thinking of them.

The government gave $400 million, in last year's budget, to the east coast for innovation in aquaculture and for innovations in fishing off the shore of the east coast. In British Columbia, what did it do? It tried to cancel a popular salmon process fund to restock our rivers and streams with salmon.

First, does the member believe that the government is treating British Columbia, on the issues of fisheries, fairly? Second, does he think this legislation does anything to change the image that I have in my mind?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the previous government, which the member was a part of, as was I, as members of the British Columbia caucus, saw great rollouts in the salmon foundation and other really great initiatives.

Then we see where politics enters the fray. When we have something that is understood to work, where we have volunteers on the ground making this thing work in British Columbia, Bill C-68 and the rationale behind Bill C-68 should be to fund it some more, because it is going to work so let us keep it going. We have seen the opposite happen with the Liberal government retracting funding for things that do work. It is a strange thing that is hard for British Columbians in general to understand.

Does the current government understand what recreational fishing is, and not just recreational fishing but preserving fish, and not so that nobody can ever fish again? Again, we are getting concerned with marine protected areas that actually protect areas from people fishing. That is not what our goal should be. Our goal should be to protect the fish so we can go fishing, not the opposite.