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.

Report Stage

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the question I asked. The member for Durham indicated that intersectionality with this project was unnecessary, that it was the virtue-signalling of ideology. I want to quote the University of Calgary Faculty of Law. It referenced Amnesty International reports that found that energy products in northeast British Columbia had unintended consequences that disproportionately negatively affected indigenous people, particularly indigenous women, reducing their housing security, increasing rates of violence, and increasing spiritual harm. The Parkland Institute found that women in Alberta have not benefited from the growth in the extractive sector as men have.

Does my hon. colleague not feel that a gender-based analysis-plus is necessary to ensure that when we look at these projects and how intersecting groups fit into benefiting from them, that we understand how they might be negatively impacted and that we look at solutions to ensure the reverse happens?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of being a woman in Canada. There is no question that it does not matter what one does. There are negative consequences for absolutely everybody. I am tired of the picking and choosing that goes by that side of the floor. The truth is that we need to do many thing as a society to enable people to succeed. That is our responsibility.

When it comes to mining, I am very proud of the women who are involved in the mining industry in my province. Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of so many other countries. When we take that kind of an ideology and use it to force other countries to change their laws and their values, just the way the government uses attestations in our country to try to determine what Canadians value should be, that is out of line.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend for Yorkton—Melville and I do not agree about the legislation. It is good legislation that repairs the damage done by the previous government. Bear in mind that we had the Fisheries Act since 1867. We have had habitat protection for decades and more. It did not stall the Canadian economy or block projects.

However, I want to make the point that the Kinder Morgan pipeline still does not have legal permission to proceed. The National Energy Board's 157 conditions have not yet been met. The company, which is now walking away from the project, never even asked the province of B.C. for 600 of the permits it still needed.

On the other hand, the nickel mine that was announced as an underground mine in Labrador by Voisey's Bay, now owned by the Brazilian company Vale, was widely supported locally, including the Innu people and the Inuit people of Labrador. There is no comparison whatsoever to a project that is opposed by most of the first nations along the route, opposed by the province of British Columbia, opposed by the alliance of British Columbian municipalities, and throughout British Columbia and remains something that coastal communities do not want. There is no comparison.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we do not agree.

The challenge is that the government is failing in every way to see this project through. The majority of Canadians, the majority of people in British Columbia, and the first nations groups involved in the production of this pipeline want it to take place. They are being held hostage by poor government and environmental groups that are sending their dollars into our country to impact our communities and create disruption. There is no way the government should be bowing its head to that. That is why we are in the circumstances we are in today with that pipeline.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. As members can imagine, as a coastal British Columbian, I understand the importance and significance of protecting our fish. Where I live, it is not just our food security, our economy, or our culture, but it is integral to everything and is what connects us. It is even in our language. As saltwater people, fish and the protection of fish is given utmost priority. We always say that the health of our fish and our salmon is a reflection of the health of our communities. The importance and significance of this bill would restore the act that needs to be put in place as soon as possible so that we can protect our fish and bring ourselves back to abundance.

One of the key changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 that removed protection for fish and fish habitat, and that will be restored, is the harmful alteration and disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It goes further by restoring the definition of fisheries to include all fish. However, it still does not address the conflict mandates, which Commissioner Cohen identified, of conserving wild salmon while protecting harmful salmon practices. This was in the mandate letter to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The Prime Minister himself instructed the minister to act on the recommendations of the Cohen commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River.

In recommendation 3 of his report, Justice Cohen recommended, “The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.” DFO is still continuing to promote salmon farming, its industry, and the product. We are concerned that the government has not followed through with this promise. It is impossible for the government to be an agent and also promoting an industry that might have detrimental impacts and effects on our wild fish. The goal and mandate of DFO should be restored to that of just protecting wild salmon and wild fish. New Democrats would like the government to follow through with the promise it made in the 2015 election campaign and that was outlined in the Cohen commission.

It has not done that, and it is something that is raised repeatedly. In fact, the Pacific Salmon Foundation just came out against open net salmon farming. Many groups in my riding are raising concerns about the impact it is having. Many indigenous communities in my riding are raising concerns around the impact of salmon farming. We would like that to be split out so that we can make sure DFO is doing its historic job of advocating for and protecting our fish. That is not happening now, and it is not in this legislation.

It is the first time that rebuilding of depleted fish stocks has been included in the Fisheries Act. However, details on rebuilding this will be in regulations. Those regulations need to be strong, with timelines and targets, and it needs to take into account the impacts of climate change and species interactions. We know in my area that climate change is real. In 2014, it was so dry—and then rained just in time, in August—that we were worried we would lose all of our fish as the streams ran dry at the time when the fish needed to spawn upstream. It is important that is integrated in the legislation, but also setting clear targets and necessary investments. The government keeps talking about its oceans protection plan and its record investments in coastal restoration, but in fact we are not seeing that on the ground.

As I said earlier, the Somass River still has no coastal restoration funds. It is expecting about 350,000 pieces of sockeye salmon this year, which is well below the average of just over a million and the high of 1.9 million. How do we get back to abundance? We need to make adequate investments, and we are not doing that. The salmon industry in British Columbia brings in well over $1 billion, yet we do not even invest $50 million in that sector. As a former business person, I know that is far from adequate in terms of investment in an industry that is so critical to British Columbians, in tourism, the commercial sector of fishing, the recreation sector, and for food security.

It feeds many people, especially indigenous people who rely on that fish, people living in poverty. It is important that the government backs it up with real investment. The bill states the following:

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;

It is concerning that it is still far from free, prior, and informed consent, a specific right that pertains to indigenous peoples and is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am going to quote from the Nuu-chah-nulth's Ha'wiih, who are the hereditary chiefs of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth first nations on the west coast of Vancouver Island. They have identified five concerns, and one is the purpose of the Fisheries Act, which must include reconciliation with aboriginal people. They said there is no reference to aboriginal people or unique and important ties to the fishery.

The Prime Minister has said that the “failure of successive Canadian governments to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada is our great shame. And for many Indigenous Peoples, this lack of respect for their rights persists to this day.”

Second, there is another quote from the Prime Minister: “We now have before us an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation between Canada and first nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit peoples.

Lastly, he has stated before that, “We are all in this together, and the relationships we build need to reflect this reality. In Canada, this means new relationships between the government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples – relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.”

They would like to see this mean true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation that includes reconciliation with aboriginal people in the purpose section of this legislation, and say, “We do not submit that Reconciliation is achieved by the Fisheries Act alone; rather, we submit that the Fisheries Act can assist in achieving Reconciliation.”

They would like to see incorporating respect for indigenous law. They say, “We respectfully advise that section 2.5 should be amended by adding the following: the traditional and contemporary laws of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, as provided to the Minister.”

Third, they are concerned about controlling ministerial discretion. They say “that the minister 'may' consider certain named issues when making a decision.” They recommend that the word “may” in section 2.5 be changed to the word “shall”. They say that, “We remain to be convinced that the government of Canada will always be a government that shares the need to preserve the environment, conserve and manage fish species conservatively, and respect the rights, laws, and traditions of Indigenous people.”

Fourth, they would like to see consistency of the reference to aboriginal peoples.

Fifth, with regard to restoring fish habitat, they say, “While we approve of the protections being given to the Fisheries habitat, we cannot concede that enough is being done to restore the habitat and repair the damage done by industry, over-fishing, or mismanagement. We therefore recommend that the purpose of the Act be amended further by adding the following: 2.1(c) the restoration of damage for compromised fisheries and fish habitat”.

They would like to see that in there. They say the time is now for the federal government to take the lead in habitat restoration. This legislation provides the perfect vehicle to do so.

Last, the bill gives a great deal of discretion around decision-making to the minister, allowing decisions to be made based on the minister's opinion rather than on scientific evidence.

In closing, we support the bill. We support restoring fish habitat. We would like to see some of these concerns addressed. These are concerns that are shared widely in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, that are shared by many of the groups that are doing the hard work, many of the groups that are advocating for our salmon in particular, and our fish.

Many of the salmon enhancement groups have identified that they have not seen an increase in 28 years in many of the hatcheries.

This has been a failure of repeated governments. Hopefully the government will put forward a real plan so we can bring back our fish stock to abundancy.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is wonderful at long last to finally hear from a member on the opposition benches in a riding that actually touches the ocean.

As the MP for Halifax, which includes the great fishing community of Sambro, people in Atlantic Canada remember the reckless changes that the Harper Conservatives made to the Fisheries Act during their time in office. We remember the 430-page Conservative omnibus bill, which in 2012 gutted the protection of Canada's fish and fish habitat without consulting indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation advocates, or coastal communities in any meaningful way whatsoever. Bill C-68 would once again restore those protections that the Conservatives threw aside.

I am glad to hear organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund of Canada, Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre speak out in favour of the measures contained in this legislation.

Would the hon. member not agree that Canada needs a strong regulatory authority to protect our fish and fish habitat, as contained in Bill C-68?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly why we support this legislation for the restoration of habitat and protection for our fish.

I have also cited some concerns. The member talked about indigenous people. The legislation says “may consider” instead of saying “will consider”. We are asking the government to amend that.

There are concerns around the Cohen commission report. It clearly stated that they have asked the government to separate salmon farming and aquaculture from DFO so that it can do its job, which is protecting our wild fish habitat and that salmon farming be a separate industry.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continually talks about how the nation-to-nation relationship is the most important one, but then what it does is disastrous. We have heard my colleagues talk about how the murdered and missing aboriginal women inquiry and the pipeline were inadequate.

I would like to hear more detail from my friend in the NDP about the consultation that has happened on this legislation and how he feels it has helped indigenous people.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the Conservatives around this legislation. We are trying to restore and implement things they cut when they were in government that did not protect our salmon.

The member has raised a valid concern about consultation with indigenous people. The letter I have from the Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth people, is because they have not been adequately consulted around the bill. They have brought forward their concern that they “may” be consulted instead of “shall” be consulted. That is a huge concern. It flies in the face of Bill S-262 that was recently passed, which was put forward by my colleague around applying UNDRIP. I am calling on the government to change the wording of that.

The government is currently fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court. The government has repeatedly fought the nation in court, and the judge has ordered the government to get to the table and negotiate responsibly. It has not done that. It is carrying on the same policies from the Harper government in the past. The Liberal government has failed to sit down and have meaningful dialogue with the nation and negotiate fairly. It was in the recent judgment with the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ahousaht et al v. Canada, that the government had done everything it could to stymie negotiations.

If the government is going to honour and respect indigenous peoples, it should get to the table and negotiate with the Nuu-chah-nulth, who have won repeatedly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Canada needs to stop fighting indigenous people in court and show respect.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the hall in the Liberal Party just asked a question about why people from the Prairies were standing up to speak to this act. I guess he did not realize oceans and fisheries is on the Prairies and has an impact on a lot of our municipalities in how they go about conducting their business on a day-to-day basis. The Conservative Party of Canada supports protecting our lakes and rivers and the oceans and the fisheries. There is no question about that. Let us get that on the record right now: We support that and we are behind it 100%.

I love to fish. We have many colleagues who are in our hunting and angling caucus who love to fish. We do a lot of catch-and-release, we use barbless hooks, we take responsibility, and we take the appropriate measures when we are fishing to make sure that a fish, when it is caught, is returned alive and safe and there for somebody else to enjoy in the future. Northern Saskatchewan is a beautiful province to fish in. I know the member for Regina—Wascana has been here all night, and he would agree with me. When we go up into northern Saskatchewan, we see the development and the fisheries there and we see the people and the beautiful landscape and it is a great place to go fishing. I encourage all members to come to northern Saskatchewan and do some fishing with barbless hooks and catch-and-release because that is very important.

Back to the business of today, what the Liberals have done in Bill C-68 is add an additional layer of bureaucracy, and that is very concerning. In 2010 and 2011, we had SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, coming into our offices, saying, “We need help. We are trying to build a culvert in a dry creek bed, and we cannot get approval from oceans and fisheries”. I remember Bud Strube from the RM of Shellbrook came into my office and said, “We have a bed here that we have to change the culvert in because the beavers have dammed it.” Because they dammed it up it didn't flow last spring, it took out the road, and did harm to the actual stream that the fish would go up and down during the spring season. Therefore, during spring runoff there is water in that culvert. By the time the middle of June hits, there is nothing in that culvert. They change it in July and August when there is nothing in the culvert and then it is there, ready for the next spring. However, they would apply to oceans and fisheries for the appropriate permits and it would sit on somebody's desk. It would be sitting there and it would be July, it would be August, September. November was coming so they were phoning to say they needed to get this done, freeze-up was happening. There would be no response. Finally when they got a response, it was already frozen up. They would go and change the culvert because they had to do it. They had to make sure the culvert was in place for the next spring's runoff. They would spend twice as much money. They are inefficient in how they do it. They cannot do as clean and nice a job in November as they could in July or August, but that is the result of having that type of bureaucracy on the Prairies.

The reality is we can have proper management of the waterways without the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in this case is an example of where it has gotten in the way. When the government adds a bureaucracy, the first thing it does is try to justify why it should exist. What do the officials do? They start bringing in all sorts of crazy rules and regulations that they interpret on their own to make it tougher to do things. I will go back to my rural municipality example. I had a rural municipality just outside of Arborfield. It had some flooding and the people had to change some culverts. It was no problem, as it was pretty straightforward. Therefore, they thought they should do some mitigation the next year. Again, they were going to go in and put some different culverts in. The rules said they had to put in all these different types of mechanisms in case there should be rain. They spent two to three days putting in these mechanisms in case it should rain, to manage erosion and all that, where it would have only taken them two hours to change the culvert. Who pays for that? I pay for that. The taxpayer pays for that. Every person in that municipality paid for that expense. Where was the common sense? It was not with the bureaucracy.

That is where I get really concerned when I listen to members on the opposite side say, “Farmers are going to be protected here. We know that. We have not seen the regulations. We do not know what the regulations are going to say, but do not worry, it will all be fine.” We have heard that before and we are not going to buy it again. This has a lot of concerns.

One other concern I have is about the transparency of the minister and his role in the decision-making process. When we make a decision, we base it on science; everybody in this House would agree with that. In this scenario, and the Liberals have done this in other areas, they have based it on the minister's interpretation of what he wants to achieve. That is not bankability, that is not predictability, and that is not even logical in a lot of cases. If they have science saying that this is the way something should be done, then that is the way it should be done. I want them to give me a good reason why they would not do that. What scares me even more is the minister does not have to reveal the science. He does not even have to justify his decision to the taxpayer. He can just do it. How does that make sense?

It does not make sense. Why would they put themselves in this scenario? In fact, in this type of scenario with good governance, it would never pass the smell test. It does not work.

If the government is basically telling people who are going to take on a project here are the rules, check all the boxes, and do everything by the rules, but the minister can come in at the end of the day and say, “You did not smile nicely; you didn't wear a nice enough tie. I am not going to approve your project.” That can actually happen, and that is wrong. That should never be the purview of any minister in a Canadian government. That creates a lot of concern.

The Liberals talk about establishing advisory panels. Again, there is no context around what this panel would do, who it would be made up of, what it would consist of, or what the end goal at the end of the day is for that panel. However, some more Liberal members can be appointed to a panel, they would get their per diems, and life would be great. There would be another panel that would make some recommendations, and like I said about bureaucracy, the Liberals love to make rules to give themselves something to do.

What do we think this panel is going to do? I think panels are important. I think consultation is very important. I think it is important that government actually talks to the people who are affected, but when separate panels are created that do not have a vested interest in the project, what is the end game? Why are they there? That is very concerning.

We will work closely with fishermen and farmers. We will do what it takes to make sure that we have a proper fisheries going into the future. We will make sure that our kids and grandkids actually have a place to go fishing, that they will have a sector to work in, and that it will be profitable and bankable. After all, Conservatives know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The Liberals should actually take their own advice in that regard. We have to have balance. We have to mitigate the balance. We have to understand that there will be sacrifices once in a while in order to achieve what is better for everybody involved.

That is just the reality. That is part of the decision-making process. I think I will close right there, and open it up for questions. However, I am very concerned with what we are seeing here. We are seeing a reversal of things, and it will not make things better for Canadians. It will make it worse. It will not make us more competitive as a country or a better country; it will make us weaker. It actually will not create a future for our families, our kids, and our grandkids and their kids. It will make it harder. Why would we do this? It just does not make sense, unless there is a Liberal goal at the end of the day.

Again, we stand with our fishermen. We stand with the people in the sector. We will always stand up for them to make sure there is common sense when it comes to doing things in the fisheries.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is standing up for people, working people. We, too, are doing that.

In my riding, we have heard, loud and clear, that people would like to see a strong Fisheries Act to protect our fish. We have seen a decline, like never before, of our salmon, for example. The protections right now are currently inadequate to protect our salmon, our fish.

I will give an example. The NEB just ordered Kinder Morgan to stop installing plastic anti-spawning salmon mats in eight B.C. rivers. That is ludicrous that they have been ordered to stop, and these mats are still place, destroying salmon habitat.

Does the member think the minister should intervene and order Kinder Morgan to stop damaging critical salmon habitat?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes. If someone is doing something that is actually harming the environment, and there is a way to mitigate around that, they should be stopping that. They should be obeying the act. There is no question about that.

That does not mean stopping the project. That does not mean take the whole project and throw it out. The issues should be dealt with as the issues come up. That is why there is a whole pile of recommendations in the approval of the doubling of Kinder Morgan. They were put in place for a reason. As long as the company does what was recommended, it should be allowed to build that pipeline. That is why those recommendations were made.

However, no. Political games are being played, and it gets stopped, even though the majority of people are in favour of it, even though it is going to bring jobs and economic benefit to everybody across Canada, even though it is going to help pay for our health care and other social programs, even though it is going to provide jobs, jobs for men, women, minorities.

That is the silliness of the left. It picks one part of a project, and then says, “That makes it evil. The whole thing should be stopped.” Let us deal with that problem, mitigate it, get rid of the problem, solve the problem, but do not throw everything else out. That is what is unfortunate with the NDP suggestion.

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

Mr. Speaker, although we are debating Bill C-68, I cannot leave the comments the member for Prince Albert just made unchallenged. I participated as an intervenor in the review of Kinder Morgan before the National Energy Board. There were two pieces of evidence. One was from Kinder Morgan that completing the expansion would create 90 new permanent jobs, 40 in Alberta and 50 in British Columbia, and that during construction, it would create 2,500 jobs a year for two years.

The other evidence about jobs came from the largest union representing oil sands workers in Alberta, Unifor. Its evidence was that completing the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion would threaten Canadian jobs and cause a loss of jobs, with a direct threat to the remaining refinery in Burnaby, and losing, through opportunity costs, the jobs that could be created by having the product refined in Canada. Unfortunately, the National Energy Board ruled that jobs were not inside its mandate. It did not want to hear anything about jobs, and refused to hear the evidence from Unifor.

In fact, there is not a single study anywhere, despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, that tells us Kinder Morgan would be a long-term job creator in Canada. Again, the evidence the NEB refused to hear from the largest union involved was that it was a threat to jobs.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member was open minded when she attended those hearings, and actually listened to all sides. Kinder Morgan is just one part of the whole sector. We needed Kinder Morgan to deliver the oil we were developing and for which we had a market. The oil sands and other oil fields needed that pipeline to get the oil to market. If we cannot get it to market, then there is no reason to have those companies operating. If we are pulling a product out of the ground that has nowhere to go then we do not pull the product out of the ground. Those are the jobs that are lost, and those the jobs were not accounted for.

Therefore, when the member talks about direct jobs in building the pipeline, that is true. When she talks about maintaining the pipeline, that is also true. However, that is just one segment of the whole industry. If we do not have that pipeline, if we do not deliver that product to market, we lose the rest of it behind it, and that impact thousands of jobs right across Canada. It impacts the type of social benefits we can provide to all Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-68.

I will begin by thanking the member for Prince Albert for the important points he made to this debate. I find it disappointing that science is being ignored, and the member for Prince Albert reminded us of the importance of respecting science. Rhetoric and false statements being made in the House to make a point really discredits that party, that individual, when they make false statements.

Regarding Kinder Morgan, the member for Prince Albert reminded us that the decisions need to be based on science and not on protesting, making outrageous statements, and carrying out illegal activities. As members of Parliament in Canada, we have to look at what is good for the country. What do we need to do? The Liberal government decided that energy east was a no-go. It ignored the science and made a political decision that energy east was a no-go, that Ontario and Quebec, the eastern part of this country, will have to continue to import oil from the Middle East. It will have to be tanked up the east coast and brought into Canada from a foreign entity.

Canada could be self-sufficient if we had energy east. We could ship our oil out of Canada if we had the infrastructure. Right now what we are hearing from the science base is that we move our oil and gas. We leave it in the ground, which means we destroy the standard of living that Canadians enjoy, or we move it by tanker or train, but we are not going to move it the safest way, which is with pipelines. It is bizarre. It is unscientific. It makes no sense when I talk to Canadians. Again, the member Prince Albert reminded us of the importance of respecting science.

I want to give a little history lesson on how we ended up dealing with Bill C-68.

I will go back to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. It is a piece of legislation that a lot of regulations for environmental protection was based on. It passed in 1999, the prime minister was Jean Chrétien, and it came into force in 2000. CEPA needed to be reviewed every five years, which is very common with legislation. It came into effect in 2000, and the five-year review would have been in 2005.

Who was the prime minister in 2005? That was Paul Martin. Jean Chrétien's government went from 1993 to December 2003, and in 2003, Paul Martin took over. There was an election in 2004. I was elected in 2004.

I have served my community for 14 years in local government on city council. However, we had trouble even cleaning and maintaining the ditching system so that we would not have flooding, as that was constantly restricted. We heard from not only the local government that I served on but from farmers, and right across the country. Things were not working. Therefore, I was quite excited when I was elected in 2004 and expressed a strong interest in making sure that on the problems we had in the country we could always do better. We can learn from what is not working. Local governments and farmers need to be able to maintain proper drainage systems; otherwise, they plug up. That was very important.

I was really excited in 2006 when there was another election and Paul Martin was no longer the prime minister. Stephen Harper became the prime minister in 2006. I was honoured to be asked to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. One of the first things we did was realize that the legislative requirement to deal with CEPA should have been done no later than 2005. It was now 2006.

The past Conservative government kept its promises. It did what was required for good governance. It served Canadians extremely well. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act review was overdue. We began with that and we spent a couple of years of consultation, hearing from Canadians about what needed to be changed. We heard that over and over again. That consultation included experts, scientists, and indigenous peoples. We did not rush it. We got it right. From that we made a lot of changes.

In the discussion that we have heard here, not science-based but rhetoric, where we have the NDP saying that the changes that were made hurt salmon. That is not true. We have heard from the Liberals that the previous government gutted protections without consultation. That is not true. Hansard will support that there were years of consultation to get it right. That is not what we see from the Liberal government where they ram things through using time allocation: “We have heard enough. We have heard from the witnesses who we chose and we wanted to hear from, so now that we have heard what we wanted to hear, we want to move this through.” That is not in the interests of Canada, and it not science-based.

The Liberals have said that they want to restore the lost habitat protection. However, that is not what happened. There were improvements so that the drainage systems across the country could be maintained. People were not being fined. We were being realistic. Yes, we do need to protect our waters. We need to do that.

Those are the changes that were made by the previous government. Now what we have in Bill C-68 is again the rhetoric or statements that are not based on science. The end result will be layers of regulatory uncertainty.

There were over 50 witnesses that came to the committee. Not one of the witnesses could identify any harm that had been done by the previous government. Actually, the committee heard about the good that had happened. There was not one witness who could show by science any support for Bill C-68 and the need for any of the amendments and changes in Bill C-68.

There were over 50 witnesses. One of the witnesses came from the Canadian Electricity Association. With the changes of CEPA, which I spoke of a moment ago, we heard from electricity producers. They said that one of their challenges is that if they put fish into the streams and restock the streams, the habitats change. They want to improve the habitat to make it better and healthier. However, if they hurt any fish by having all of these new fish introduced into the streams and lakes, they will be held responsible for an existing structure. They said if we could provide freedom for them to make those changes, they wanted to do that. It is good for the environment, just like farmers wanting to make things better, so as long as they were not going to be hurt by doing that, they would like to be able to make those changes. That was one of the changes that was made.

Now what the Liberals are saying will restore lost habitats actually will have the opposite effect. That is what the Canadian Electricity Association said, that Bill C-68 represents one step forward but two steps back. Bill C-68 is a missed opportunity for the federal government to anchor the Fisheries Act in a reasonable population-based approach, rather than focused on individual fish, and to clearly identify fisheries management objectives.

What is being proposed creates uncertainty. It puts farmers at risk and it puts infrastructure at risk. What it does, though, is that it keeps a political promise made by the government. That is why we are not hearing science-based information. Rather, we are hearing rhetoric. It is really sad.

It was in 2005, just before there was a change in government, there was a report from the commissioner of the environment. It stated, “When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground”. That is happening again, and that is not in the interests of Canada.