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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on the conversation about jurisdiction and the legislation. It's my understanding that import and export is federal jurisdiction, but sale and use is provincial and territorial.

For instance, enforcement related to the sale and use of shark-fin soup would generally be the domain of the provinces and territories, but entry of these products into the country would be the domain of the federal government.

I just want to clarify if that's the case.

Second, we've been talking about two types of legislation under the Fisheries Act and WAPPRIITA. The Fisheries Act is not using WAPPRIITA; it is using specifically Bill C-68, but under Bill S-238, it includes WAPPRIITA.

Mr. Fraser was talking about an issue that was related to investigation that I think, Mr. Gillis, you replied about.

Under WAPPRIITA, the government would have the power to investigate if a product had shark fin in it and was being, let's say, served in an establishment in a province. Under the Fisheries Act, is there the same power, or not? Would a CBSA official or a CFIA official or a department official have the ability to do that similar investigation under the Fisheries Act?

Take your time, although I only have three minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I would agree, because the RCMP has broad, sweeping ex-officio status throughout Canadian legislation, and I'm pretty sure that CBSA has the same. I just wanted to get verification. I'm not expecting this to be a hiccup; I just wanted clarification.

What does the department do as a general rule of practice when it comes to policy changes, whether they are drafted by the government or not?

In this particular case, Bill C-68 is government legislation, although it's being amended in the Senate, but Bill S-238 is a private member's bill. Does the department do a socio-economic impact assessment as a matter of process any time a piece of legislation is put before the House that would affect any of the fisheries or anybody in the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If so, was one done for Bill S-238?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

If the coordinating amendment in Bill C-68 in the Senate actually says that Bill C-68 takes precedence and the CBSA officials and Canada Wildlife Service officials and CFIA officials have no official status under the Fisheries Act, then we have an enforcement issue. Would you agree?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Okay. That's what I am asking you.

Are you saying this legislation, either through Bill C-68 or Bill S-238, if they pass, will actually enhance the current environment and strengthen the regime?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mel.

Thank you to the officials for being here. This is interesting.

First I would like some clarification. We've had the discussion about the difference between Bill S-238 and Bill C-68, but what is the difference between Bill S-238 and Bill C-68 and the current regulatory environment? Is there enough of a discrepancy that we're actually substantively changing anything in the Canadian practice insofar as shark finning is concerned?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

I want to move on now. You said that Bill C-68 implements everything that Bill S-238 does, except for derivatives. Can you tell me what you mean by derivatives or what was meant by derivatives in that context? That's not clear.

[Paul Gillis]

The penalties would be the same. I'm going to ask my colleague here from Environment and Climate Change Canada to comment on the penalties, but yes, the penalties would be the same, whether the legislation is stand-alone legislation in the private member's bill or in Bill C-68.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

I want to pick up on a couple of points from Mr. Donnelly.

Regarding the enforcement, the CBSA officials obviously have the job, if this bill becomes law, to ensure there's no importation of shark fins. What is the penalty for anyone contravening any aspect of Bill S-238, and are Bill S-238's penalties the same as what would be in Bill C-68?

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

Okay. I think what it comes down to is that we have to hope that Bill C-68 gets out of the Senate and comes back to the lower house and gets royal assent before the House rises next month. That's where we're at.

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

Great. Okay, thank you.

My second question is along the lines of what my colleague earlier talked about in terms of changes.

If Bill C-68 becomes law, what will be the changes in Bill C-68 if Bill S-238 becomes law?

What I'm hearing is nothing, that it's mirrored, except that the derivatives and the words “live sharks” were removed from the definition. Other than that, it's essentially exactly the same. There is no difference.

Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, departmental officials, for being here and providing your testimony today.

I'd like to start by thanking the government for amending Bill C-68 to include the shark-fin ban. I've been working on this issue for eight years, and I'm glad that the government has recognized this. I'm glad we've heard that this will be included if Bill C-68 becomes law.

I'd also like to thank Senator MacDonald for his efforts on Bill S-238. I think he has championed this through the Senate and the upper house and done an admirable job of raising awareness about this issue in Canada.

As I mentioned, I've been working on this issue for the past eight years, so I'm happy to see it finally get to this point. We're almost there. We're not quite there.

I also think we'd be remiss if we didn't thank all the organizations and individuals who have helped to get this legislation on the government's radar to this point. There was HSI Canada, Oceana, Rob Stewart, and his parents certainly, just to name a few. As well, many municipalities across the country have also implemented shark-fin bans.

I have just two questions. One is on enforcement.

Once Bill C-68 or Bill S-238 becomes law, could you describe the implications for our border officials? In other words, once this becomes law, how does this law affect them? How do they enforce this law?

[Paul Gillis]

I'll use the term that I used at the outset. I think that the policy intent of Bill S-238 has been adopted in Bill C-68, and that Canada now has among the best practices when it comes to deterring shark finning.

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

Is it needed to bring us up to international standards?

We've said that Bill S-238 has been primarily adopted by another piece of legislation. Is it failing in any areas? Is Bill C-68 failing in any area that is captured by Bill S-238?

[Paul Gillis]

No, the derivatives element was not included in Bill C-68.

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

Going back to the question that our colleague asked—and forgive me, but I didn't have my earpiece in place, so I missed a good portion of what you were saying—we know that Bill C-68 has adopted a lot of this bill's content.

How much of Bill S-238 has it primarily adopted? Did I hear you correctly that subsections 32(1) and 32(2) of the Fisheries Act have been amended completely?