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, the reality is, as I work and live in the riding I serve of North Island—Powell River, I hear from so many different communities. Many of the sport fishery folks talk to me about how well they work in that environment. They are watching to see what is happening, because they want to preserve and conserve that region. They want to make sure we have healthy habitat for fish, and a strong fishery into the future.

We hear from those sectors and the indigenous communities that there is so much we could be doing. They say, “We need to protect and maintain, because this is our food. This is the wealth of our communities.” It is a wonderful thing to see that come together.

It is important though to state that the minister still holds a lot of power and we need to make sure that decisions are not based on a minister's opinion but that they are based on science and the information that is given to us. Many people rely on that resource. We must respect it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. member for her excellent speech and for her passion for representing her riding, an important part of the coast and coastal communities.

She talked about how important the Fisheries Act is to her area, to the coastal communities, and how important it is to get it right. She also spoke about local knowledge and traditional knowledge and the importance of including traditional knowledge. That is being reflected in the bill, which is a good first step, but in fact it is a small step.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the importance of going the next step, which is talking about co-governance, co-management, and actually looking at UNDRIP and recognizing what it is all about when talking to first nations and the importance of the fishery to first nations, and their knowledge.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a really important question.

I have the honour of representing over 20 indigenous communities in my riding. They range across a broad area. The issues that they face are very diverse and very similar. One of the challenges that a lot of the communities have talked to me about is being able to work and harvest our marine life for traditional purposes, but also as a way of having their own economy, and how many things have changed, and how that has had a huge impact on their ability to have good jobs in their small and sometimes very remote communities.

This discussion of nation to nation, of really looking at working together and governing together is so important. There is so much knowledge. When I sit down with the leadership, with the elders, I hear that knowledge. I really hope the minister will step in the direction of understanding that the first peoples have lived here since forever. They know their territory. Their history goes so far back that 150 years does not even touch it. They want to share that. They want to make sure their locations are cared for, and they want to be a part of that process.

We had a terrible diesel spill in one of the parts of my riding not too long ago. The indigenous community was there on the scene. They said to me afterwards, “We just want to be part of the process so that when this happens, we can activate things, do something, but we were sitting there waiting, being told we couldn't be part of the solution. When are we going to be part of the solution?”

That discussion is really the next step. I look forward to seeing that happen. I know the nations in my riding are watching for that.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments which would introduce key measures to ensure our fishery resources are available for generations of Canadians yet to come.

Today, through proposed amendments to the act, the government is moving to restore lost measures that would protect fish and their habitat, and to modernize safeguards for the challenges we face in the 21st century. However, more than protecting further loss of these resources, we are also introducing measures that would help restore them. These actions would help maintain biodiversity and would also generate positive economic spinoffs for the fisheries. Such dual benefits reflect the goal of sustainable development, a healthy environment, a prosperous economy, and a vibrant society for current and future generations.

All told, the fisheries sector is valued at $13 billion and employs some 72,000 Canadians. Our fisheries are an economic driver in rural communities on all three coasts, including in many indigenous communities. That is why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans supports an economically prosperous fishery while retaining conservation as its top priority.

The cultural impact of the fisheries may be harder to measure in dollars and cents, but it is no less important. For some families in coastal communities, fishing has been a way of life for generations. Indeed, for many indigenous peoples, fishing traditions extend back millennia.

In developing the Fisheries Act, the government understood that the fisheries contribute to rural and indigenous communities in both tangible and intangible ways. In keeping with the principle of sustainable development, we sought to achieve a balance between environmental, economic, and social imperatives. In this way, we could help preserve the integrity of the fisheries in the years ahead.

There is no single threat to the sustainability and productivity of our fisheries. Damage and loss of habitat, aquatic invasive species, and changes to freshwater flow all contribute to the decline of freshwater and marine fisheries.

Indeed, restoring habitat provides an opportunity to redress past negative impacts. The proposed Fisheries Act identifies four key areas that would require consideration of fish and habitat restoration measures: stock rebuilding; factors to consider when issuing permits and authorizations; ecologically significant areas; and the making of regulations. Let me take them one by one, starting with fish stocks.

The proposed act would support the restoration of degraded fish habitats. Of course, the department already works to repair past impacts and help restore depleted fish stocks; however, these activities are not integrated into key areas of its mandate. The new act would address this gap. Under the proposed amendments, when making decisions that would impact a depleted stock, the minister would need to consider whether measures are in place to rebuild that fish stock. In addition, the minister shall take into account whether there are measures in place to restore degraded fish habitat, where the minister is of the opinion that the loss or degradation of fish habitat has contributed to a stock's decline.

The second area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the list of factors the minister must review before making decisions about permits, authorizations, or regulations. The proposed amendments add a new factor for the minister to consider: do the planned offsetting activities give priority to the restoration of degraded fish habitat?

The third area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the creation of ecologically significant areas. These areas are intended to protect sensitive and important fish habitats by prohibiting certain types of activities. The proposed amendments would make provisions for these sensitive areas clearer, stronger, and easier to implement.

I will give an example of how the process might work. Working with partners, including indigenous groups, the department would identify potential ecologically significant areas. Together, they would identify the best way to protect fish habitat and what activities the minister could approve. If the minister believes that habitat restoration is required to meet prescribed objectives for conservation and protection in an ecologically significant area, then a fish habitat restoration plan must be published on the public registry. Not only would this approach go a long way to restoring habitat, but it would also promote greater engagement with partners, as well as greater transparency with Canadians around decision-making.

The fourth area relates to authorities for making regulations for the restoration of fish habitats. This regulation-making authority can be exercised when it supports the conservation and protection of fish.

These amendments help the department pursue the overall policy objective of restoring the ecological integrity of degraded or damaged aquatic habitats. Collectively, they give the department legislative authority to advance restoration planning, regulate harm to aquatic habitats from proposed development projects, guide habitat-offsetting efforts, and to work with multiple partners to achieve these objectives.

Together, these proposed changes to the act would help achieve three important results. First, they would help protect biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems which leads to more stable and resilient biological systems that can better withstand impacts related to development projects. Second, they would help build healthier and more abundant fish stocks. This in turn would make fisheries more resilient and would lead to greater potential long-term economic gains. Third, the proposed changes would contribute to the sustainability of the fish stock and continued economic prosperity in Canada's fishing communities.

I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting these much needed amendments.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and agree with a lot of what he said. However, I do want to focus specifically on a large issue that is affecting the west coast in British Columbia. That is the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The project was approved under the current act and the old NEB process. My colleague talked about the importance of science-based decisions. If this project goes ahead, one of the issues is with the product that is going to be shipped. We do not know if dilbit sinks or floats, but it is likely to sink. There is no technology on our coast that is readily available to clean that up. As well, how would we go forward with a world-class oil spill response?

The minister and the government have talked about the oceans protection plan, but there is no technology known to clean up that product. How can we have a science-based approach, and then this glaring scientific gap in cleaning up this product that the government wants to move off our coast?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did say that the Kinder Morgan project has already been approved, so I guess the approval and the environmental assessment have already been done for it to move forward.

Hopefully, now that we have the time to bring these changes in, we will find and incorporate the science that will provide the necessary protection should such a mishap occur where the substance leaks out into our pristine oceans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Avalon. He has been a very strong advocate on a wide variety of issues, but he has a special interest in our coastal regions and important issues in that area. I also respect his representation of his constituents. How does he think his constituents would see this legislation as a whole, and the manner in which he will be supporting it?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when we were looking at amendments to the Fisheries Act at the committee, one question I asked various witnesses, whether they were DFO officials, environmentalists, or whomever, was whether we were going to get it right this time. I told them that Newfoundland had a strong connection to the fishery, my riding in particular, that all but one community was bound by the Atlantic Ocean, that many people made a living from the ocean and had for hundreds of years, and that they would continue to do that. It was very important that we get it right, that we protected the fish and fish habitat. I did not speak to one fisherman who was inclined to say that we should catch the last fish or damage the habitat. They wanted it to be there for themselves and their children to use.

A representative from one of the larger fish companies in the province, Ocean Choice International, was speaking at a function one night. He made the comment that the fishery had to change. He said that it was not about the quantity but the quality we took out of the water. I was surprised to learn that this Newfoundland-born company, and still Newfoundland owned and operated, exported 100 million pounds of fish to 35 different countries every year. These people depend on the fishery. It provides a good living for a lot of people involved in the fishery. The company wants to see the fish there tomorrow so it can continue to provide those very important jobs.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the perspective of my Liberal colleague. I do not think anybody in the House wants to jeopardize the health of our fisheries, whether in the oceans or rivers. I have probably three of the most pristine fly fishing rivers in the world in my riding. I certainly understand the importance of protecting those waterways.

The concern we certainly have heard from many of our constituents is the overarching unintended consequences of undoing a lot of the elimination of red tape and regulations we did in 2012. I know it is important to protect some of these large fisheries and large waterways, but there would be unintended consequences. It would impact farmers, ranchers, and rural municipalities.

They will have to go back and deal with that onerous red tape. They will have the DFO enforcement officers over their shoulders when they are spraying around draining ditches. They will have to worry about cleaning culverts. This was a huge issue for our rural communities. That is why we made a lot of these changes in 2012, and the bill before us would undo the changes and go back to that red tape.

Could my colleague comment on the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation and the impact it will have on rural communities?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what the member said, such as a farmer who puts in a drainage ditch in which a trout decides to habitat and is punished or stopped from doing any future work in that area.

I was glad to hear the minister say earlier today, in response to a question, that he hoped the bill would go to committee so further amendments could be introduced. I would hope for something along those lines to protect the farmers. I certainly do not agree with them being punished because a trout or some species of fish has found refuge in drains they have created to drain their lands or provide water to their crops. I look forward to those amendments coming forward to committee in the near future.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one think that will be strengthened in the Fisheries Act is the focus on the inshore fishery, the owner-operator principle. We support that element of the legislation.

My hon. colleague talked about the importance of protecting habitat and biological diversity. However, one of the shortcomings of the bill is that there is no protection for environmental flows, which is about the quality and quantity of the water in rivers and that habitat which is so vital to the protection and flourishing of the fishery. Could my hon. colleague comment on the importance of protecting environmental flows and securing that water for fish?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague is on the fisheries and oceans committee.

It is important we look at all aspects of protecting the environment and the habitat. It is no good protecting one part of it if we do not protect it all. Water flow is certainly a big part of that. As I said earlier, I look forward to the bill coming to committee and having amendments put forward.

The member mentioned the owner-operator policy, which is very important to individual fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of seeing large companies buying up quotas and farming them out to fishermen, the individual fishermen are the people who should hold those quotas. They should see the benefits of it, with the money going back to the communities in which live.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments. We have time for a 30-second question and a 30-second answer.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Watch how quick I can be, Mr. Speaker.

The government committed to bring in legislation in response to the legislation that was passed in 2012, so it is a promise kept. Could my colleague comment on keeping that promise?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is the shortest question I have ever heard him ask, keeping it to 30 seconds.

It is a promise made and a promise kept. It was a good promise, and it is good to see this great promise kept by this government.