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

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one issue that keeps arising in my riding is a very particular challenge of people overharvesting shellfish. One of the major concerns is the fact that there is not enough enforcement. There is no one there watching and checking how many shellfish are being harvested, and that goes back to the sad history of seeing staff from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans slowly erode in smaller rural communities.

As this challenge continues to grow, indigenous communities and the general population are coming forward, particularly in Powell River, where we now have busloads of people coming in from the Lower Mainland to harvest shellfish from one particular beach.

I am wondering if the member would be willing to speak about the importance of enforcement and how we need to look further into the future at legislation creating a safety net for this industry.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We have to look at a number of different issues.

The first is public information. We have areas called rockfish conservation areas where certain activities are not allowed to happen. The casual fisher or the harvester may not even know those areas are posted. Therefore, we need to ensure they are more clearly delineated.

Second, absolutely we must reinforce and rebuild DFO's ability to do the necessary enforcement to protect fish stocks and shellfish stocks in this case.

Finally, we heard so many times from so many people that we had the capacity of people who made a living on the water, our indigenous people and non-indigenous people, who could make a contribution not only to the science but also to the monitoring of compliance with the rules and regulations that would come forward in the bill.

On all three scores, I hope this will address the concerns raised by the hon. member.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up on the north coast of B.C. and as a teenager worked at a cannery fileting fish and salmon, I know how important the fishery industry is to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How will this legislation fulfill what was a campaign commitment, a platform commitment, that our party ran on in 2015 to restore balance to environmental programs and to the Fisheries Act? I would love to hear what and how this would fulfill our platform commitment.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a key value that we put forward was the necessity to make evidence-based decisions. The problem we have had is that the evidence has not been available. The capability to collect that evidence was seriously compromised over the past 10 years.

We want to rebuild that but at the same time we want to employ the precautionary principles to move in where things might not necessarily be clear, where we know something is going on and we have to take immediate remedial action.

Like my hon. friend, I spent some time on the north coast out in the fishing boats. One of the things that concerns me about the activities on the west coast is the separation of the people who own boats and the people who own the fishing quotas. They have been struggling with this on the east cost as well but seem to have a much different and much healthier industry because of their approach on the east coast.

The legislation also introduces an opportunity to talk about this issue on the west coast.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks. For the past few hours, I seem to have heard the Liberals make heartfelt speeches about the environment and push the few merits of this bill, because it does have some, while at the same time criticizing the horrors of the previous system established by the Conservatives.

Since the Liberals have recognized the need to protect habitats, which is the intent of this bill, how can the Liberals say that they are working to protect the environment and help economic development, and then turn around and agree to the construction of Kinder Morgan under the principles they criticized the previous government for?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have heard this before, but it is possible to have a healthy economy and a healthy environment, and we need both.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's a very good point.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

This has been noted as being a very good point, Mr. Speaker.

The Kinder Morgan line passes right through the north end of my riding. Our citizens are concerned. However, we need rules of the game, standards and codes, that prescribe what can go and what should not go. These are all component parts of the legislation.

May there be another Kinder Morgan, we do not know? However, in the future when projects like this come forward, there will be a much clearer way of assessing their positive and negative benefits, if we want to call them that, and to respond accordingly through the regulations that will be in place.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to mention that I will share my time with my charming colleague from North Island—Powell River.

Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, has been a long time coming. The NDP is very happy that this bill has finally been introduced. All of the environmental bills being introduced this week and those that were introduced last week should have been introduced and implemented much more quickly. The Liberals promised to do so, and then waited two years. I understand that they had to consult the public, but they could have implemented some of the provisions without taking all this time for consultations. We are a bit disappointed in this.

Nevertheless, this bill is extremely important, because it implements a number of the recommendations the NDP made in its dissenting opinion during the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review of the amendments made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. I remember that sad day in 2012 very well, when the Conservative government rammed the hundreds and hundreds of pages of its infamous Bill C-38 down our throats. This bill contained a number of amendments that weakened our environmental laws. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out, these amendments are unfortunately still in effect.

The Liberals endorsed Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project even though the public does not support it. Furthermore, since the assessment was a total farce, two of our country's wonderful provinces are now in a dispute.

There are some good things in this bill, of course. The government will once again protect fish and their habitat from activities that could kill fish. With respect to this bill, many people have commented that we must not protect only fish used by humans. We must not forget that biodiversity is an ecosystem. Fish eat each other, and if we do not save the other fish, then those we eat will have nothing to feed on. That is why taking several fish species off the protected species list was so ridiculous. That protection will be restored, which is a good thing. The HADD provision on harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat will be restored.

In addition, the government will for the first time include recovery of depleted fish stocks in the Fisheries Act. That is a very good thing. There are some aspects of the bill we are concerned about, though. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill gives the minister far too many discretionary powers. The Liberals have said they would make evidence-based decisions. However, if the minister is allowed to do whatever she wants regardless of science and ancestral indigenous knowledge, everything will depend on the minister's opinion rather than science. That is what we find so problematic about this aspect of the bill.

As I was saying, the Liberals should have reinstated fish habitat protections as soon as they took office, rather than waiting.

I must mention that many of these measures came from amendments proposed by the NDP.

Congratulations to everyone who worked on improving this bill. I commend the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who did excellent work on this. He worked to reinstate solid protections for fish habitat, to put forward suggestions on how to replenish fish stocks and ensure their viability, to advocate for establishing a public registry, which is very important, and to take into account indigenous knowledge.

Before I continue, I would like to talk about the very important report of the Cohen commission, which deals with Fraser River sockeye. The report recommended that the government, which is currently a Liberal one, act on the commission's recommendations to restore sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River. In the third recommendation of the report, Justice Cohen wrote:

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.

In that regard, I would like to come back to the excellent work done by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. We know that, unfortunately, the Liberals defeated Bill C-228, which was an excellent bill that sought to transition to the use of closed containment facilities and protect the jobs of workers in that sector so that nobody would lose out. It was a very good bill but, unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it.

Right now, many Canadians, including many of my constituents, are questioning the Liberals' intentions, since they also voted against the bill introduced by the member for Sherbrooke, who is another excellent MP. His bill had to do with the mandatory labelling of GMOs.

As the Liberals were voting against the mandatory labelling of GMOs, they secretly approved the farming and sale of genetically modified salmon in Canada. In fact, Canada remains the only country in the world whose citizens have eaten genetically modified salmon. We do not know who ate it. We do not know where it was purchased. We do not know the circumstances, since labelling is not mandatory, but there is absolutely no question that we unfortunately ate it.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, has invested over $3 million in the company that produces genetically modified salmon.

Once again in secret, genetically modified salmon is being produced in Prince Edward Island, even though there has been no environmental assessment on the potential dangers. Genetically modified salmon could escape from their enclosures during storms and other severe weather conditions that could occur. The potential impact of such an accident on Atlantic salmon populations has not been assessed. As we know, the wild Atlantic salmon stock is already threatened.

We will support this bill for all the reasons mentioned. However, we are very disappointed in the Liberal government's efforts relative to what could have been done to improve aquaculture on the Pacific coast, as well as the labelling, sale, and farming of genetically modified salmon. Canadians are angry. We need to take action on this, and we will.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of my colleague from Drummond. Despite the bill's few merits, there is one element in particular that caught my notice, and I would like to hear what he thinks about it. The Liberals seem to be borrowing, or carrying on, the Conservatives' tendency to use bills to grant more and more power to ministers.

The Liberals had assured us that decisions would be based on scientific evidence, but the current bill says that the minister will have the power to make basically whatever decisions she wants. Then, when I check the registry of lobbyists, I see more lobbying of companies than of scientists themselves.

Is there not a risk that the government will give in to pressure from big lobby groups and depart from the goals it is setting out with Bill C-68?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question. He is correct. One of the flaws in this bill, which we do support, is that it gives the minister far too much leeway. The Liberals say we are going to rely on science and indigenous traditional knowledge, but at the same time they say the minister is going to be able to do basically whatever she wants. That makes no sense. If we say we are going to rely on science, that means we are not going to rely on the minister's opinion. We had enough of this with the Conservatives, who supported economic development at all costs, without regard for sustainable development. The economy is one of the pillars of sustainable development, but there is also the social aspect, meaning the environmental and social economy.

This flaw is evident not only in this bill, but also in other bills, including the environmental assessment bill the minister just introduced. I do not know what the Minister of Environment put in her coffee, but all of her bills leave her plenty of leeway to do whatever she wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate that a great deal of work was done leading up to the legislation that was presented today. There were a couple of outreaches to the public to participate, via the Internet. There have been well over 100 different meetings with different stakeholders and indigenous people to get their thoughts and reflections first-hand. The standing committee was also engaged, which came up with 30-plus recommendations.

The legislation before us today is very much forward thinking and I am wondering if the member would agree, given the consultations that have taken place, that the bill was fairly well thought out before being introduced in the chamber and that we should send it to committee. The minister indicated that the government is open to hearing what everyone else might have to say. Does he think that is a good thing?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is right that it was important to consult all the groups affected by this bill. There is one thing the Liberal government could have done immediately. As soon as it came to power, it could have restored protections for all fish in Canada. That is being done now, but sadly we lost two years.

I commend the government for listening to the groups and the public because there are a lot of good things in there. I mentioned for example habitat protection for all fish, the considerations related to restoration and sustainability, the cumulative follow-up, which is important, and the rebuilding of fish stocks. These are all good things that are in this bill. I congratulate the government on that. It says that it is open to amendments, but I hope it will also be open to clarifying the ministerial discretion because we have serious concerns about that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak to this particular bill because it is so important to the people I represent in North Island—Powell River. It is a very large riding, covering half of Vancouver Island and parts of the mainland as well, so it is really important to me as I serve coastal communities. These communities have a long history of resource economies, and in our resource-rich area the ocean is a large part of our economy.

In these changing times, many people from across my riding have spoken to me about the challenges that they face. Many members of the communities I serve have spoken to me about increasing challenges to make a living fishing in our region. Licences are getting increasingly expensive, leaving the smaller family-owned businesses struggling. Most concerning is the growing scarcity of wild salmon in our region.

It is important for me to discuss legislation like Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, as it touches so directly and profoundly on the lives of residents of our coastal communities. The Fisheries Act is a key federal law for fish habitat protection, one of the key laws for marine biodiversity, and an essential part of Canada's environmental safety net.

On October 25, 2017, Oceana Canada released a review of the state of Canada's fisheries and how the government is managing them. Most concerning to me was how the results told the story of serious concern. In Canada's fisheries, only one-third of the stocks are considered healthy and 13% are in critical condition.

Canada's fishing industry employs more than 79,000 employees and exports more than six billion dollars' worth of seafood annually. In my riding, we have businesses that focus on seafood processing, like Keltic Seafoods in Port Hardy. These local businesses are an important factor to the economic backbone of these regions. They hire local people, keep jobs in the areas that need them, and are so close to the resource of seafood. When our marine stocks are in trouble, this has a significant impact on businesses like these.

It also has impacts on the tourism businesses in our region that flourish due to the natural habitat. Be it in Telegraph Cove, up Bute Inlet, in Gold River, Campbell River, Tla'amin, or Sonora, just to name a few of the robust tourism communities, if people want to experience the beauty of whales, wild salmon, eagles, or bears we have them all and all of them rely on the marine stocks.

The other concern that I have been hearing from the indigenous communities that I have the pleasure to represent is the lack of access to seafood resources for the traditional foods of the people. Many of these communities rely on the food of their ancestors, and as it becomes harder to access, many people are struggling. Visitors to my riding do not have to be there long before they understand the importance of the water, how the ocean and inlets provide a livelihood for the people who live there. They are our water highways and roads for jobs.

It is so easy in our fast-food, plastic-wrapped world to forget the food chain, from the food on our plates back to the earth and the waters, to the farmers and men and women who fish. It is too easy to disconnect ourselves from where our food comes from and how much that food needs to be healthy, safe, and enjoy the protection of good laws and regulations. This is the vital role that the federal government plays.

We saw with the previous Conservative government a disrespect for our fish habitat. The government gutted provisions that offered protection. Changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 removed protection for fish and for habitat. I am not surprised that four former ministers who wrote the former prime minister to oppose the changes all came from British Columbia. We on the west coast know its importance. Two of those ministers, Siddon and Fraser, were members of the former prime minister's own Conservative Party but he did not listen to them.

In fixing the loss of that protection, it is important to recall the huge public outcry then opposing the Conservative government legislation. More than 700 scientists wrote the government urging it to keep habitat protection in the act. First nations communities in my riding and across British Columbia spoke out against the changes. Conservative organizations, recreational fishers, and concerned citizens joined first nations demanding that we do everything possible to protect fish habitat.

As Jeffery Young of the David Suzuki Foundation notes:

Without healthy habitat, fish can’t survive. These changes are important tools to fight badly degraded habitat from resource development across Canada as well as prevent species extinction.

My party and I welcome this legislation. We give our support now for second reading. The progress we are making in protecting our fish habitat is happening in part from the good work of the New Democratic Party in committee, including the amazing advocacy of my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam. This bill would implement some of the recommendations made by the NDP in our dissenting opinion to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review of changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act and the management of Canadian fisheries.

This legislation is a good start, but I fear the government does not go far enough to address protection. Let me state first what I like about the changes proposed in this legislation and then what needs to be better. It is good that we again are more specific on what we must be on guard against. It is good we are talking now about the harm, alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, and that we are again restoring the definition of fisheries to include all fish.

Now, when making a decision under the Fisheries Act, the minister will have to consider any adverse effects the decision may have on the rights of the indigenous people of Canada, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of traditional 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.

This is long overdue. This respects and begins the process of a nation-to-nation relationship between governments. This is something we will all be watching very closely.

These changes will 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 to their harm. We will need to be vigilant on the regulations still to come to ensure that an ecologically significant area will truly be protected. There are several such ecological areas that are significant and sensitive in my riding. There can never be too much protection, given the human, financial, and ecological consequences from any accidents. I find that the expertise in my region of local sport fisheries and indigenous communities is key here. The benefits of hearing those voices, who care so deeply for the habitat and the success of our marine life, will assist in making good policy. I hope the minister remembers to use that local knowledge.

So much of whether this law will lead to good practice will depend on the regulations. Susanna Fuller, Ecology Action Centre, has said, “It is a big step that the new Act includes that the minister must take into account whether or not rebuilding measures are in place for depleted species, however, details on rebuilding will be in regulations.”

Even with this progress in fish habitat protection, I still have concerns on whether this legislation has gone far enough. I am concerned that this bill still does not address the conflicting mandates that Commissioner Cohen identified of conserving wild salmon while promoting salmon farming. This needs to be clarified and it is still not being addressed.

Another concern I have is the need for strong regulations that follow the passing of this legislation. This will need to be clear with timelines and targets, and take into account the impacts of climate change and species interactions.

I note the bill would give a great deal of discretion around decision-making to the minister, allowing decisions to be made based on the minister's opinion rather than enshrining the necessary strong guidelines in the law. This has me concerned and vigilant, along with many who are at the forefront of protecting our fish habitat. I am concerned too that this legislation does not look at protecting environmental flows. This is so important.

With this bill, we would see undone the bad laws of the previous government. Let us ensure we do everything to make sure this a good law, the best possible law and regulations to truly protect our fish habitat. The activists, scientists, businesses, and first nations communities are asking for a better bill.

In closing, the people of North Island—Powell River rely on the strength of our coast to provide recreation, beauty, and economic development. Protecting these investments is so important today and into the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech and I want to make a comment as opposed to a question.

I want to put on the record that in my jurisdiction, we are so happy with the recent agreement with the Arctic nations to preserve the Arctic Ocean from fishing until the stocks have been evaluated to see if our stocks can actually be fished, to hold off all the countries that would like to fish there. I assume the member, with her very positive speech, would agree with that initiative.