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.

[Jean Lanteigne, Director General, Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels]

Thanks to all.

A big thank you for calling this emergency meeting. Thank you also to Mr. Serge Cormier for inviting the Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels to appear before you today.

First of all, a short flashback where as soon as the small redfish appeared in the summer of 2011, we immediately sounded the alarm to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and told them that we were going to have significant issues in our fishery and the shrimp industry if we did not act immediately. DFO's only action was to pull out of the drawers a closure protocol for small fish, and for the years 2012 to 2015, our shrimp fishers were forced to concentrate their fishing efforts in areas where there were few or no small redfish. It was not important to protect the shrimp.

As you can see, in the table attached to my presentation here, as early as the spring of 2016, DFO's science team commented on the negative effect that redfish were having on gulf shrimp stocks. Even though we have insisted in each of those years that we allow a redfish fishery in an attempt to reduce shrimp predation, it has always gone unanswered.

On another note, I would like to take you back to 2019 when Bill C-68 was supposed to modernize the Fisheries Act in order to achieve new objectives and thus ensure the sustainability of our fisheries. Let me quote one of the points sought in this legislation: "For our communities, it will keep the benefits of the fishery in the hands of independent fishers and their region."

Not only has this done nothing to protect our shrimp stocks, but the same is true of the recent allocation of redfish quotas, where it is clear that DFO has ignored its own legislation.

Also, I would like to draw your attention to the Gulf Licensing Policy, a copy of which you will find here in the appendix to my presentation. Let's take a look at sections 6 and 7.

Section 6 states very clearly that there is no ownership right for anyone who holds a fishing licence. It is very clear that the Minister has full discretion to issue a fishing licence without regard to history. The same is true for the allowances attached to these permits.

The announcement that Ms. Lebouthillier made on January 26 that she was relying on the history of the past 30 years does not hold water. It is also necessary to pay attention to section 7 of the licensing policy, which states the guiding principles for awarding these permits. Reading the nine points in the subsection, it is even more difficult to understand how the Minister did not take all of these elements into account in the redfish quota allocations that she has just made. You may also recall the Anglehart Jr. et al. court case before Justice Gagné, which clearly established this issue of ownership and distribution of allowances.

Now let's discuss the reality of the situation.

Yesterday we received the administrative list of allocations for the gulf shrimp quotas based on the total authorized catch, or TAC, of 3,060 mt announced by the minister. The highest allocation for us here is 48 mt. The second part of the Minister's announcement allocates a 10% quota of redfish reserved for shrimpers.

Let's see what this can do. Let's be a bit positive and go for a redfish TAC of 100,000 mt. Without going into details, let's consider the case of a fisherman with the highest shrimp allowance. At a price of $1.25 per pound for shrimp and $0.40 per pound for redfish, he would have an income potential of $220,000. However, the fixed operating costs of a shrimp boat are on average $175,000. It is impossible to operate under such conditions. The solution is to turn to the processing plants, to whom the minister has given the vast majority of redfish allocations in order to obtain a quota in sufficient quantity to make ends meet.

For fishing enterprises of less than 65', in our opinion, this contravenes the law of the owner-operator; for those of more than 65' it is a return to the last century when American and European processors controlled fleets, factories and markets. The story tells us that Messrs. Leblanc, father and son, both worked very hard when they were fisheries ministers to put an end to this practice. Today it's "Back to the future".

How can you, as a minister, as a department, as a government, force our fishing companies to break the law or, even worse, submit to the control of companies that will decide who, when, where and at what price the fisherman will be able to go fishing? Soon, these fishermen will have no choice but to sell their fishing enterprises to these companies or be entirely under their control. These companies will immediately open their arms wide to them because they need their fishing effort, but that is throwing the independent fish harvesters into the wolf's mouth.

In our view, this is a case for litigation against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It makes no sense to put in place conditions such as the current situation that force our fishing enterprises to commit illegal acts in an attempt to survive, especially when it is a law of this same department.

Over the past few years, our coalition of shrimpers from New Brunswick, Quebec and the west coast of Newfoundland has asked all successive ministers, LeBlanc, Wilkinson, Jordan, Murray and Lebouthillier, to have priority access to the opening of this redfish fishery with a minimum TAC of 25,000 mt.

We have also asked to be the only ones to fish this resource for the first two years in order to allow producers to develop a market for this redfish, which is in competition with Norway and Iceland in particular, and thus allow a gradual entry. In 2018, Minister Leblanc made public commitments to this effect.

We have also indicated many, many times to departmental staff that we need 2 million pounds per fishing operation to ensure profitability, the 25,000 mt being a starting quota. Our requests have been repeated multiple times, always without response.

Thanks for hearing me, we're out of breath.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

The concerns I'm bringing to you are based on conversations I've had as recently as two hours ago with these stakeholder organizations in the Maritimes.

Why are these agreements not being published in the Canada Gazette, per the requirement laid out in Bill C-68?

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

We are all painfully aware of the Liberal government's track record when it comes to tabling confusing legislation: more gatekeepers, more red tape, longer delays and the politicization of decision-making.

Canadians everywhere are tired of the Prime Minister, who scares businesses away from investing in our country. They are tired of stifling bureaucracy and costly Liberal bills. This bill is full of this.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been in power for eight long years. They have nothing to show on the renewable energy front and have made no progress on attracting investment to Canada's energy sector. It is quite the contrary, so forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the state of this current legislation as it is written.

We have seen this dog-and-pony show over the last eight years, over and over again. We had Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, to name just a few. The Liberals consult, they equivocate and they blur the lines. They do everything they can to muddy the water, except get the job done.

Bill C-49 proposes to make the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulators. At the same time, it would create a regulatory framework for offshore wind and renewable energy, the regulation of which would be added to their mandates.

As my colleagues have stated before on this subject, the Liberals have finally decided to include the provincial governments as partners in decisions affecting their jurisdiction. Of course, they did not do this with Bill C-69, and we all know where that unconstitutional legislation stands.

Bill C-49 would triple the current regulatory timeline for project approval. Currently, the provincial review boards have the final say on the approval or rejection of a project, at which point the relevant provincial or federal ministers are given a 30-day period to respond before the decision is finalized.

Under Bill C-49, ministers would be given 60 days to respond, with the possibility of a further 30-day extension and a further possibility of an indefinite extension.

Thanks to nearly a decade of the Prime Minister, Canada is a country that is characterized by a strict and stifling red tape regime. We are now among the most costly and regulated business environments in the world.

Liberals continue to attack traditional energy development, trying to recklessly phase it out, to the detriment of all.

I will remind the House that the first thing the Prime Minister did after his election in 2015 was to publicly apologize for Canada's natural resources, saying that he wanted Canadians to be known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources under his government.

It does not get much more out of touch than that. Liberals say they want to boost alternative energy, yet they use a bill like this to suffocate it in regulation and red tape. The proposed framework is not only one that creates more bureaucracy and red tape, but one that politicizes each and every step of the decision-making process. By giving final authority to federal and provincial ministers, the regulators are reduced to the position of giving recommendations only to the government.

To be clear, Canada's Conservatives support the responsible exploration and development of offshore resources, but we also believe it should be done responsibly, through an arm's-length regulatory process, not political decision-making.

An even more disturbing aspect of this legislation is its potential to be used to impose a complete shutdown on offshore oil and gas development projects at any time. I will say this again. This bill could end offshore petroleum extraction in Atlantic provinces for good at the whim of a minister.

This bill is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's key industries, one that generates billions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs. Section 28 and section 137 would allow the federal cabinet to halt an offshore drilling or renewable energy project if the area “may be identified” as a marine protected area in the opinion of cabinet.

I bring us back to Bill C-55, a bill Conservatives staunchly opposed. It allows the fisheries minister to unilaterally declare an area to be a marine protected area, essentially using the precautionary principle to shut down projects in the absence of any scientific proof.

Bill C-49 would do exactly the same, and this should scare every Atlantic Canadian. There could be a unilateral decision by a minister that is not based on science, leading to an arbitrary opinion from the cabinet that leads to the shutdown of a vital offshore resource development project our country desperately needs.

This is not the way to govern if Canada ever hopes to attract business investment in our energy sector. Furthermore, this cancellation process for new or currently operating projects provides no meaningful consultation with indigenous or community interests whatsoever. There is zero responsibility for any stakeholder consultation. This abdication of responsibility, this failure to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous interests, may also invite extensive court challenges, leading to further delays as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle.

As I alluded to before, there are also a number of practicalities with the bill that beg for clarification. For instance, the bill requires some degree of federal funding to cover the expansion of mapping by the regulators, as well as the expansion of offshore activities generally. As for these financial implications, there is no specific funding allocated. We must also question whether the regulators will need additional personnel for technical expertise, along with additional funding to allow them to properly fulfill their new responsibilities under their new mandate. If so, where is this money coming from? Is it even realistic to expect the regulators to be prepared in a timely fashion to deal with this new work that is currently outside their scope? Bill C-49 leaves much to be desired in the way of clarity.

After eight long years of this Prime Minister, Canadians should be very wary of a government that says, “Don't worry about the details; we'll deal with them later.” They need answers now and they deserve answers now, answers this government must be prepared to provide the House.

I was hoping the government would learn from its failure with Bill C-69, which had the same lack of detail on crucial issues, uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and vague timelines, but this legislation shows that they have learned absolutely nothing, which comes as no surprise.

We see the same inefficiencies of Bill C-69 imported into Bill C-49. Not only does the Impact Assessment Act have provisions to allow the federal minister to interfere in any given project if they deem that it is “in the public interest”, but it would also allow them to create any arbitrary conditions to which a project proponent must comply. How does that create confidence or certainty for investors? Is it not the responsibility of government to create an environment in which businesses want to invest, and in which businesses want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? This Prime Minister seems to have forgotten this part of his very own mandate.

These provisions go further and would allow the minister, again, to impose arbitrary conditions during project review, which would serve to further delay timelines for an unspecified amount of time, potentially even years. This will only drive industry away from Canada. It provides absolutely no certainty to these businesses that want to invest potentially billions and billions of dollars in our country.

It cannot be overstated how detrimental the consequences of more Liberal uncertainty are. Shamefully, this has been the effect of taking Canada out of the global competition for energy development, both traditional and alternative, when instead we should be a global leader.

Going back to my earlier comments, perhaps this is exactly what the Prime Minister meant. Not once has he championed the Canadian energy sector on the world stage. Instead, he apologized for our existence, which only drives investment to other countries and squanders opportunities for Canadian workers. We have the resources and we have the workforce and industry leaders. We can be a global leader in the energy sector. Instead, the Prime Minister prefers to cede market share to overseas dictators whose environmental human rights standards are non-existent.

It is time to put Canadian energy first, it is time to put Canadian jobs first and it is time to put Canadians first. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques. We need a Conservative prime minister who will green-light new technologies, reduce approval timelines and remove the Liberal gatekeepers so that major energy infrastructure projects can finally be built in this country once again.

With that, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Lakeland, that the bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those same sections are embedded in Bill C-49.

Sitting Resumed

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to close out debate this evening on Bill C-21, and it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House and represent the constituents from the great riding of Fundy Royal who elected me. Many of those constituents enjoy hunting, farming and sport shooting and maybe have inherited a firearm from a relative. Hunting in my riding certainly is something many people like to partake in and enjoy.

What is the problem we are trying to go after? It is gun violence. What the facts tell us is that 80% of the firearms used in violent crime are illegal. What are some of the figures? Violent crime is up 32% in Canada in the last eight years. Gang-related violent crime, the stuff Canadians are talking about, seeing in the news and hearing about in their local newspaper, is up almost 100% in the last eight years. What about crimes that are committed with firearms? Eighty per cent of the firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally. We have an illegal firearms problem in Canada.

What is the solution when we have an illegal firearms problem? We should go after the illegal firearms. The last thing we should do is spend valuable resources going after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners in this country. However, we should not be surprised that this is the approach the government took. We have to remember this is the same Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68, or the long gun registry, and that spent, according to the Auditor General, over $1 billion registering the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while having no impact on crime.

It is the same government that brought in Bill C-5. What did Bill C-5 do? I mentioned that we have a problem with illegal firearms. Bill C-5, which was introduced and passed under the current government, repealed mandatory prison penalties for many firearms offences. They include robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. These are the types of offences that Canadians would expect someone convicted to go to jail for. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 removed mandatary jail sentences for those crimes, so we are not going after the illegal guns and we are not going after the criminals.

The figures should get the attention of all members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. In Toronto alone, one half of murder suspects this year are out on some type of release. In 17 of 44 homicides in Toronto last year, the individual was out on bail. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to gang-related violence and firearms violence with the revolving door, the catch-and-release, of our bail system.

The government had an opportunity with this bill to tackle some of those things. Instead, what it did is went after everyday, law-abiding Canadians, the type of Canadians I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal.

As parliamentarians, we need to take the issues that confront us in this country seriously. This bill does not do that. The government showed its hand when it brought it an amendment that would have banned all kinds of hunting rifles, rifles that have been in families for generations. These are not the problem. Law-abiding Canadians are not the problem. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. Spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy back and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens is not the solution.

When this bill is fully implemented, Canadians will not be one bit safer. Until we have the courage to tackle the revolving door of catch-and-release bail and until we have the courage to say that those who do serious crimes are going to get a jail sentence, we will continue to have these problems in Canada. We need to leave law-abiding people alone and go after the bad guys, and that is what the Conservatives will do.

Second Reading

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore.

It has been a month now that I have been in the role of shadow minister for the Treasury Board. I would like to once again thank the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, for this role. It gives me an opportunity to work very closely with two of my favourite members of Parliament, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the shadow minister for ethics, which we have been doing continuous work on ArriveCAN, and the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who serves as our shadow minister for finance. It really is a pleasure to have this role.

I am sure members are aware of the crippling inflationary numbers in Canada, 6.9% in the most recent reports, down a slight bit from the 8.1% high we saw in June. Food, of course, is at a 40-year high.

I just came from the government operations committee, and the President of the Treasury Board was there on the supplementary estimates. I am sorry to report that the government has asked for another $21 billion, and I am not making that number up. We have a $36.4 billion deficit this year. That is because of $6.1 billion in new spending even though we are supposed to be moving past the pandemic now. One thing is clear about the Liberal government, and that is that it just does not get it.

As I said, inflation is at a 40-year high, and 1.5 million Canadians are using the food bank in a single month. In the GTA, pre-pandemic food bank usage was at 60,000 people per month. During the pandemic, it was at 120,000 people. Now, under the Liberal government, it is at 182,000 people per month.

Grocery prices are up 11%, the highest rate in 40 years. One in five Canadians are skipping meals and more than half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. What is the Liberals' solution? It is to give up one's subscription to the Disney channel. As I have said, the Liberal government just does not get it.

Consumer insolvencies rose 22.5% compared with a year earlier. This is the largest percentage in 13 years. Small business insolvencies are on the rise. One in six businesses are considering closing their doors. This is very dear to me, since I come from a small business family.

The average credit card balance held by Canadians was at a record high of $2,121 at the end of September. The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that households will soon have to allocate 15% of their income to debt servicing alone. Nine in 10 Canadians are now tightening their household budgets, yet the Deputy Prime Minister is telling us not to worry, that Moody's gave us a AAA credit rating. Quite frankly, that will not put food on the table. The government just does not get it.

Mortgage interest rate costs rose by 11.4% on a year-over-year basis, the largest increase since February 1991. For those whose mortgages are up for renewal this year, they will pay $7,000 more compared to five years ago. Also, the average rent is now $2,000 a month. The average rent for a one bedroom in Toronto was $2,474 in September. In 2015, seven years ago, it was $1,100. In Vancouver, it is $2,300. In 2015, it was $1,079. Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world and Vancouver is the sixth worst, according to UBS. However, the government is telling us not to worry, here is $500, when people need $2,474 for one month rent alone in Toronto. It just does not get it.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015, which is 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015. There were 778 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, a 29% increase. There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police-reported hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years, yet the government pushes through Bill C-5, making it easier for offenders to stay home and play video games. The government just does not get it.

About 31,000 Canadians lost their lives to overdose between 2016 and 2022. There were 7,169 deaths from opioid overdose in Canada in 2021. Twenty-one people a day are dying from overdose, and before the pandemic it was 11. More than six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor and, as brought to light by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, there has been a shortage of children's Tylenol and Advil. No other country anywhere in the globe is experiencing such shortages. However, people should not to worry, because if their child is sick, there is day care for $10 a day. The government just does not get it.

When it comes to immigration, there is a backlog of 2.6 million people. It has grown by 800,000 people under the current government. Fifty-seven per cent of the files in the system are beyond the processing timelines set by the government, and what is it doing? It is putting up incredible new targets that we know it will never achieve, which is not fair to the people who are applying or for the people who are backlogged in the system already. The government just does not get it.

Toronto's Pearson airport is ranked the most delayed airport in the world, with Montréal-Trudeau International Airport right behind it. We have seen how horrible it is to get a passport in recent days and how difficult it is for families who just want to get away on vacation after the difficult two years they have had. It has been impossible to get a passport. We know this, but what does the Minister of Transport say? He says it is Canadians' fault; they do not know how to travel anymore. The Liberal government just does not get it.

We have the second-slowest time for building permits of any country in the OECD. The average permit time is 250 days. In South Korea, it is 28 days, yet the government continues to shove money into the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is millions of dollars after millions of dollars. The government just does not get it.

In 2015, there were 50 major LNG infrastructure projects under proposal, yet not a single one has been finished. It is the government that gave us Bill C-68, Bill C-49 and the carbon tax, bringing energy production to a halt in this nation at a time when we need it the most. The government just does not get it.

I will tell members what the Liberals do get. They know how to spend and they know how to tax. Under a Conservative government, there would be no new taxes. For every dollar of spending, we would find a dollar of savings. However, until that day, we are unfortunately stuck with the current government and the government just does not get it.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say happy Bandi Chhor Divas and happy Diwali as well.

I have sat through the Bill S-5 debate, which has been riveting. I think the pages are wide awake, maybe not so much after my time.

Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since 1999.

We agree that this outdated act needs to be updated, but we have some concerns. Throughout the course of my 20 minutes, I will speak to that. First off, it is hard for us to take lessons from a government that has failed at every step of the way in the last seven years. It has promised a lot and talk a big game, yet it has failed every step of the way. Earlier on, I mentioned that the government likes to fly the flag and say that it is here for reconciliation and that it is the environmental steward of our economy and our country, yet it is still approving billions upon billions of litres of raw sewage being dumped into our waterways right across the country.

I do not need to remind the House, although I will, that this is also a government that has waged war on our natural resource sector from day one. The Prime Minister apologized. He said that under his tenure Canada would be known more for its resourcefulness than its natural resources. That is not true. He has absolutely waged war.

I will remind the House that it was the government that brought in the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which absolutely punishes Canadian producers. The government has waged war. It has sided with these third-party groups that helped the Liberals get elected in 2015. I will remind the House of that. Over 105 different organizations waged war against the Conservatives and sided with the Liberal Party to get it into power, and now it is paying them back. These organizations have infiltrated even the highest offices of the PMO.

Bill C-68 was an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I debated and studied that. I stood in the House and talked about it for hours on end. That is the act to amend the Fisheries Act where we looked at the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats, which we showed and proved. Not one government scientist or biologist could prove that any of the changes that were done by the previous government resulted in or had harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats.

Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, is another one where the government waged war on our natural resources and energy sector. It essentially said that any tankers coming to the west coast to get Canadian products would be banned, yet American or other foreign vessels could come. Nothing similar was done on the east coast, where hundreds and hundreds of tankers each week are bringing in foreign dirty oil into our country.

I know that we have just a short time before we get into a riveting session of question period. I am excited about that, too. I know the gallery is, and so are my colleagues. We have a lot of concerns about this, notwithstanding the 24 amendments that were passed, 11 of which I will get into when I have more time after question period.

The government talks a good game on climate change, yet it has failed to reach any of its targets in the seven years since it was elected. It really has no plan. It was the member for Timmins—James Bay who mentioned this. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said she has many concerns about what is in this bill and that amendments need to be addressed.

However, we have heard the government say over the last seven years to just trust it and that it will deal with it in committee, yet it failed to do that. Trust is earned; it is not just given. Time and again, the government continues to burn that trust and any goodwill with not only the opposition, but also Canadians.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, Bill C-68, a bill passed in the last Parliament, requires the government to publish any agreement in the Canada Gazette before it is signed. Are you aware of that?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, CMP does not enforce the law under this minister.

Bill C-68 in the last Parliament amended the Fisheries Act to say that all DFO agreements needed to be published in the Canada Gazette before they are signed. Is the minister aware of this?

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

If that report has been completed, has it been shared with anybody outside of DFO or the government? It would be interesting to see that report.

I want to move on, hopefully, to someone we can have a better connection with. I'm sorry yours isn't working, Ms. Sonnenberg.

Despite Bill C-68's efforts—the changes to the Fisheries Act in the last Parliament, and the efforts to strengthen the principles—do you think the current wording and applications are strong enough to achieve the intended outcomes of protecting fisheries and harvesters?

I'll start with you, Mr. MacPherson.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Ms. Sonnenberg, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

To each of you, and you may want to comment on the original question, all parties supported the addition of fleet separation and owner-operator to the Fisheries Act when Bill C-68 was before the committee in the 42nd Parliament. In your opinion, did Bill C-68 properly establish these principles in the Fisheries Act?

I'll start with you, Mr. Sullivan, and then Mr. MacPherson, followed by Ms. Sonnenberg after that.

[Dr. Marvin Rosenau, Instructor, Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Program, British Columbia Institute of Technology, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Marvin Rosenau, and I'm honoured to talk to you today. My background in fisheries work goes back 40 years locally, nationally and overseas within and outside of governments, including in academic and scientific venues as well as in management and policy and the courts. I am now an educator with the fish, wildlife and recreation program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and I specifically concentrate on fish and aquatic sciences.

My personal view is that the current salmon collapses that have occurred in southwestern B.C. and the Fraser River have largely been driven by impacts associated with fish farms. However, with the recent announcement of 19 farms being removed from the Discovery Islands smolt out-migration routes, along with the decommissioning of the Broughton Archipelago fish farms several years ago, the DFO is moving in the right direction. I praise Minister Jordan, this standing committee and others for making these bold moves.

Today I will focus on habitat destruction and the failure of DFO to address this issue, and that's my theme. Species and ecosystems cannot survive and thrive without properly functioning habitats, and thus I pose the following questions. Are there sufficient and appropriate rules in place in Canada to protect these salmon stocks and species in B.C. from habitat damage, for example, through Canada's Fisheries Act? Are the existing rules being implemented properly, either at the referral and approval stages for new projects where potentially deleterious impacts might occur, or where random violations might take place and fisheries officers need to initiate an investigation and the triage decision folks need to go forward with charges or directed remediation?

It's my position that, notwithstanding the recent upgrades in the Fisheries Act via Bill C-68, which was very good, in my experience over the last 30 years using the act, there is no reason to believe there hasn't been sufficiently good legislation, regulations and policy to protect fish and fish habitat. However, the implementation of these rules has sometimes been woefully inadequate. This can be due to a lack of will in the internal DFO decision-making process, sometimes due to a failure in understanding what constitutes destruction of fish habitat, and there's often a failure in regard to how to restore or mitigate damage.

Staffing capacity at DFO habitat protection in British Columbia continues to be a major issue. The loss of the Prince George DFO habitat office and some of the closures in the Quesnel, Clearwater and eastern B.C. offices exemplify this problem.

My opinion, having worked on this issue for many years, is that habitat protection is the most difficult part of fisheries management, and to do it properly always requires a lot of work and tough decisions. If they're doing their jobs properly, agency habitat decision-makers have to constantly tell developers, farmers, loggers, miners or the hydroelectric industry that no, they can't do that, and that rarely occurs.

The capitulation to proponents becomes the norm, due to pressure both within and outside of government. Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in the Fraser estuary and the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project are current examples of this scenario.

Habitat protection and enforcement staff and the fish and fish habitat protection program, FFHPP, decision-makers in DFO often feel personally and professionally vulnerable to criticism. They try to do the right thing: protect habitat. My observations and my own personal history is that superiors often come down hard on employees who try to take legally and scientifically defendable positions.

As an example, there has been a spectacular failure to protect large amounts of salmon habitat in recent years regarding the removal of flood-land forests in order to develop farmland in the areas between Mission and Hope on the lower Fraser River in B.C., and I think you might have some figures to see. In my opinion, many of these activities in what we refer to as the heart of the Fraser have been clear violations of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. However, DFO has not charged any landowners under the act that I'm aware of, and up to a thousand hectares of prime Fraser River juvenile salmon-rearing habitat have been or will be lost because of inadequate enforcement or bad triage decision-making in the FFHPP.

DFO has failed to properly interpret the science and/or the law, and/or has simply refused to enforce its own rules in this instance, and this is just one example.

In conclusion, Canada has lots of good rules for salmon that are adequate to protect fish and habitat, but the government needs to concentrate on applying its existing powers, and not politically interfering with but supporting line staff in terms of increased capacity and the various ways I've just discussed.

Thank you very much.

[Tawney Lem]

Some of those plans are in development. I think what we need to remember is that it really is a question of scale. You asked whether it is river by river, province-wide or coast-wide. It's all of those things. There is work that has to happen at a watershed level. There's work that has to be done at a subregional or sound level. There's work that needs to be done on a south coast basis and then a coast-wide or province-wide basis. All of those also have to come together in an integrated way.

We're looking at the west coast of Vancouver Island chinook recovery plan that is under development right now—as a result of COSEWIC listing west coast chinook as threatened as well as the Bill C-68 requirements. The plan that's being worked on there is for the integration of hatchery, habitat and harvest: what fish in what amount in what systems for what purpose, and how do we get there? Enhancement is a tool. Habitat is a tool. All of those things have to come together. We need to be talking among those different scales to make sure that what's happening in one area is complementary and assisting the work that's happening in another area.

Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates, 2020-21

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Chair, it is great to see you again as we continue our conversation this evening. I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I hope to speak for eight minutes or so because I have a question or two for the minister.

I am rising with a bit of nostalgia. It will be great to chat with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as someone who now represents a very urban riding in Vaughan—Woodbridge but who grew up in a small town in northern British Columbia called Prince Rupert, and who still has family there and whose parents immigrated to Canada. My mother and her four or five sisters all, at one point in their lives, worked at a cannery, whether it was B.C. Packers or J.S. McMillan Fisheries or the co-op fisheries. Prince Rupert is known as the capital of halibut, as one sees when one drives into the town.

I have very many fond memories. I actually worked at a cannery growing up, and on the weekends my family would go out for a picnic along the Skeena River and go fishing for chum, sockeye, spring salmon or coho, and sometimes trout. It would be a very fascinating time.

I would like to echo some of the things that the minister has spoken about today, and let Canadians know about some of the great work that is being done at Fisheries and Oceans under the minister and this government.

Canadians know that climate change is real and we are witnessing impacts that are directly affecting Canadians and our coastal communities. With the longest coastline in the world, our oceans are home to diverse ecosystems that support not only marine life but Canadians across the country who depend on it. With warming temperatures, we are seeing warming waters and ocean acidification, which is leading to less oxygen in our waters.

These changes are threatening the health of the species that live in our waters, including our fisheries, which not only contribute to ocean biodiversity but to our ocean economy. Canada's commercial sea and freshwater fish landings is, on average, over $3.7 billion a year. Catches from our waters end up on dinner tables and in restaurants all across the country and, yes, around the world.

Supporting ocean biodiversity is helping to also support our economy. This is why it is imperative that we continue to invest in ocean protection and work with the provinces and territories with a renewed focus on collaboration to conserve this important resource. This is exactly what our government has been doing from coast to coast to coast. This minister is working with provinces and territories to ensure that our fisheries and oceans remain protected and healthy.

I want to first speak to the capacity building at DFO, undertaken by this government after being elected by Canadians, following the major and devastating cuts brought forth by the Conservative Party. When the Conservatives were in power, it was their mission to weaken science, to ignore science and to remove protections from our oceans and fisheries. They believed that by slashing science, this would help with project development.

On this side of the aisle, Liberals believe that we can still put in place strong protections and support industry development. An example of this is the Fisheries Act. In 2018, our government introduced Bill C-68 to modernize the Fisheries Act and restore lost protections to fish and fish habitat after the Conservative government gutted the act. Even more shameful, the Conservatives did this under the omnibus budget bill so that they could force changes through without due consideration from elected parliamentarians. It was so bad that four former fisheries ministers opposed the changes, two of whom were, notably, Conservatives.

Let me quote former Conservative minister, the Hon. Tom Siddon, who said:

The real scary part of this is that the one minister in Canada who has the constitutional duty to protect the fishery...is the Fisheries Minister. These amendments essentially parcel out and water down his fiduciary responsibility, to the point that...he can delegate his responsibility to private-sector interests and individuals....

He also said, “it’s appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar.”

However, I am proud to say that, in the last year, our government passed the renewed Fisheries Act that restored lost protections that were previously stripped by the Conservatives, and modernized it to include important inshore owner-operator policies, fish-stocking rebuilding provisions and more certainty for industry.

Not only is the Fisheries Act strengthened when it comes to fish protection, but there is a clear permitting framework for development projects to ensure that industries have the regulations they need to move forward when it comes to large and small projects.

I would also like to add that our Liberal government introduced further amendments to Bill C-68 last year, which included a ban on keeping whales in captivity and a ban on shark finning. Both these issues had previously been identified as individual private member's bills that the Conservatives were trying to block. Following royal assent, Canada became the first G7 country to ban shark finning, and that is something that Canadians should be proud of.

On top of making important changes to legislation, our government has been making investments and taking action to build science capacity at DFO. Most Canadians will remember that the former Conservative government made $100 million in cuts to DFO, eliminated 500 jobs, and muzzled scientists. In fact, it even closed seven of DFO's 11 libraries, which contain world-class research, and attempted to close down the Experimental Lakes Area, a facility that boosts leading scientific research regarding freshwater systems.

Since 2016, our government has hired almost 300 new science staff, and between 2016 and 2021, this government will have invested over $500 million in marine and freshwater science.

This is real progress. It is without a doubt that science underpins decision-making at DFO. Investments in science are important in ensuring that we have the information we need to protect our fish stocks, our coastal areas and our marine ecosystems. That is precisely why this Liberal government has made investments in science, not just at DFO, but across departments, a priority.

I also want to touch quickly on marine conservation. Protecting our oceans is important. It not only ensures that we are conserving ecologically significant areas to maintain biodiversity, but supporting marine conservation also means helping keep our fisheries healthy, which supports many of our coastal communities. It is in everyone's interest that we find ways to work with communities to protect our oceans.

Over the last five years under a Liberal government, Canada has protected almost 14% of our marine coastal areas, up from just under 1% under the former Conservative government. Indeed, this is something that Canadians should all be proud of.

I do wish to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question, going back to the province I was raised in. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans invested heavily to support the migration and improve Pacific salmon stocks. How much has been invested to support British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation? How is this improving Pacific salmon?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Chair, the other day, the minister complained I was putting words in her mouth. She complained the leader of the opposition did the same thing tonight. I would ask the minister to get away from the talking points and answer these questions.

Last year, Parliament passed Bill C-68, which amended the Fisheries Act. Conservatives supported elements of these changes because they enshrined in the law two key principles: the owner-operator and the fleet separation policy. This legislation exempted first nations from these provisions. The proposed Clearwater buyout sees 100% of Clearwater's Canadian licences being held by FNC Holdings, a company 100% owned by two first nations, and those two first nations are exempt from the inshore fleet separation and owner-operator regulations of the act.

Will the minister put as a condition of her approval on the transfer of these licences, which she is entitled to do, that FNC Holdings will not be able acquire inshore fishery licences, contrary to the spirit of the law passed last year?